



















































C* /- \ 

* # I ' * \^ S ■> O , 

' C‘ v x s '"/ 


^ .# 


A ^w r t> ^ 

S . 5,0 y 0 * V * 4 A 

^ * v 1 a p <> 

0 V <» * *v 

.v -? ^ 

* A' 

A O 

<X 




** - ■ ■ ”'X* ,.., 

" <* -v a^ r « 5* * 

^ C> 



V * 

i> </\ 


W <v - r , v> ^ ° WmW " <? ■; 

^ y &. %SS§r * oV ^ *» - '*U, , , 

* A <2*/ AA V0 V <T, y o*jA .A O*/,. 

-*'- ** - V * , <*. vi> c«* « « ^b, 

1 *V J U * ^ f -^ 



,-0 v <■ 







A-- ""*''*'As ' • •» JV 415 N 0 ’ </ »’ *«. ’ !l ' *' v<' ” ' *'~ " 

\ Jb r\ V <p ^ 

A «. ,r\N>^/i« ^ A> * 




3 M 





o A 

* 0 v > <?■ 

S /* V . * , 

S s A 0 . , B <A 0 * >* " A 

rv V <i v ^ C 

0° + y* * 

■ -fWSb* ^ v* : 

e\: )»<!, >- 

cK ✓ Nis -*' 5 ° * y%9 

9 V * > 6 o / o 

Pb. <A r - *V> ^ 

•%•«? * £M&A \ ** <f 

S>'\ ',Wm& * ,v"^-. « 

*^A ' \ ,0’ t <• -y „'.;■» A 



v ** ’ ^ v\ <«» 

: ++* t* 





^ & » X 0 ^. 

°0 *• »7Ti . 0 V# 5 ' ”\. ' 4 Vs o >* A° C b *■*,,, 

V> s s ' >c ^/ > 9^* ^‘o, 





^ v>5 ^ 

*'>v..r:v^ ;v - 





o 5 ^ - 

„ . — s V ^ . 

o t' \ a- ci, v . 

^ ^n' 4 \V * * ^ * o 

^ V> O s ; 

- ■% 






f :sm£n?+ ++ ^ 

^ * 

C^r »> * Qs' 

^‘.ONO V ^ V* o, % 

A* -V ,\. • 

*3> v . cSVJI/% ° ^ ,c^ ° 

V* % ° 

i o 



l ~ A' 

o O WWW r x \^ y 

'• ^' e * ‘ V.« 

•; '"o o' r ^ v* ° 

' ^ ^Wfs? » ^ * 

% a- <^. y . ^ , <I a0 CV /- 

^ * 3 N 0 AV °^t 4 

•■ ^‘- ,0> t ' * o , 




i^ v ^ 

•y <>\ 0 

r>^ 



,V 



-*'■ a rJ ^o ^?^Ts x ,G X <* y o 5 >. ^ A 'o, x , 

A X t » s S ,0 ^y> v1b ^^ .-^ c oNc A 

a : ' <." ^ s ^ -#> A ^ ° 




















» a . A * A 

\> s'** 



aV </> *- ' 

■\y '% * 

r> ' 



° ^ ** ; 


* 

x *«. V " ’«'*S » . , ‘ * V 

4° V ' * * ' ° 4 x a\ X .0 * 0 V* 1 • * S 

r\ v ^ .a v ^ ^ y O. 

fVJ X ~i *p (o » ,-4Ax v . ' '~j 

-t ^ ° ^ oN 

» \° °x. * » . .„__ 

"A O (• r? *‘ ‘ : O o.-' 

%, *•"“ ,f s 

^ V s s 


^~j p< 1 %. v 

ywJ **\ 

' n » v * .A C 


2 

« «V> <<, o 

„* A *’ “."^ - 

' / ,u,^'-' / „*«, 

^ ^ ,\ X 

■* v* K ° 

* <■ 

o \0 O, v 

> ^ X A 

<■ A C' ^ -V 

N *<ro* 


.0' 


\'> *'”*• 'o fl *<*"' v c. ' • V' 

■'" %/ * 

v s « ‘.WT?'- r /- v / ////J( _„, T „ 

$ " aV <P - ^^ '■i'j^y^ r yb o t<, / ■>.; Aj^ aV <^p 

1 * ,\v </^ * £w\^ * ^U. ; M, A v .>> 

I <\ *0 x / t s S x -G^ < y 0 * x * .A. ^ X/ / 

.\\ c on^ ** G 0^ x^ V ' ® G 0 V ■ 

'■ £55 ^'' - ^^ '^' ; 



v 



= Jy 00 ^. 

~ - y ' 'Ky^ ^ 0 O ^ t~ 

*»»»' A 0 ^ 



' t. * " 1 '* A* s s 
C^ V X 

r ^ *v> 

o » 

z > Z i 

■ O ° 

\* y a %,'* 

1 ji ,i' *»'<#. .* N t ,,, i/o 

c- 0 Smm>L\ V ^ ^n B ° 



-f ^ J l> 

^ V 

\ ♦ fN /O 


V °o c, 0> ' 


jp. * ^ ^ 

•6 '' f^ N ^ y * 3 ^ 

^ 81 V X > 

>\ C«M , 





. , ^ ♦ & 
° A <£ » ^ 

X .- X* ^ j ■* <\ 

S y 0 * X A ' 

^ a V > « 4 ^ A X C 

/•v) V ^ - "V 1 ^ *> 


> 



, *> r 


sS 

* X V 

* o o x 

<* i ^ * 

„ o5 ^ 

> ^ * o no’ . "i/. ‘ 

t s * * 7 , > 0 V «L V * °*7 C* 

- " A ^ ^ ^ ^ -<< 

* rT\\ YYi O 1 



^ » g l A * \^ X - ’ 7 0 

^ • * °7 V \/ ' 

^ r r^/'^ ^ v, * ^ l 

^ & * jcKMA * % v - 

01 aV <P > c C> o iY// \\w *\ 

* y ^ * a x> ^ * XfV^V x v ^ 

kV,0NC, \ V ^ ^ ^ V « * % ^ 0 " ° ^ % 

,/r^ ^ N ^ ^ ^ 

r J-* ^v o /v\ r /n rv N 



*fe o x . 


r\ s -'^ s v / s s -7 

' c C‘ V v ^ . w , 

F r V’ \V 

b o ,jV O 



S _ _ ’ ^ ^ ^ 

^ » |1 \V s * 7 

% V v S ^/^ 

A ^ ‘ 

u 


^ ^ Q \* 
~ V A 



* A>“ </> > 

* ^ ^ * 
rv» 


't *x^' l B 

A‘ <■ V ' 8 * <^U 

0° O /r^_ ^ V 


•A 

y n . ^ A O y / / 

o * \ \ V ^ v/^. y t> <r 

A' 0 N ^ a 

: A « <rR^v ^ O 0 ^ 


z t -»• z 

fN CL V O 

* «/ ^ o 

4> t> , 

\* Jy ^ y o, x ^ 

s ^ ,vn< V 

("S’ V ^2,-, 1 * C* 

" \ ^ <?- 



o 
> 

K. ✓ '* VJ '" * ^ r\ 

4% *° N ° A *■<*•, ’’V 

V r «A ” ^ c-> ^ *P 

* w7 


* j, 00 ^ 















NEW LANDS 


\ 




1 


NEW LANDS 


BY 

CHARLES FORT v' 

U 

J 

Introduction by 

BOOTH TARKINGTON 


it?k 

r3* 

Nr 


BONI & LI VERIGHT 

PUBLISHERS ; : NEW YORK 




/ 


COPYRIGHT, I923, BY BONI & LIVERIGHT, INC 


Q 113 
,F17L 




2 , 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA 


VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY 
BINGHAMTON AND NEW YORK 


NOV 26 *23 j 

©C1A765136 „ 



A*i> 'V 


I*/©/a* 


INTRODUCTION 


“Personally” (as we are more wont to say in our youth than 
in our other ages) I find that a book with an Introduction always 
worries me a little. I want to read the book itself, not the Intro¬ 
duction, but for some reason I have a feeling that it is my un¬ 
pleasant duty to read the Introduction. Usually I decide to read 
the book first and the Introduction afterward; but then my reading 
is tainted throughout by my sense of guilt; for I have learned by 
experience that I never do read the Introduction afterward. So, 
in time, I have reached the conclusion that an Introduction ought 
to inform the reader’s mere first glance that he needn’t feel guilty 
if he doesn’t read it even afterward. Adopting this view, the 
author of the present Introduction finds himself perfectly equipped 
for his task. Readers might be made much more uncomfortable 
if the Introduction of “New Lands” were what such a book might 
conventionally expect: a professionally scientific writer—prefer¬ 
ably an outraged practising astronomer. 

A few years ago I had one of those pleasant illnesses that per¬ 
mit the patient to read in bed for several days without ^self- 
reproach; and I sent down to a bookstore for whatever might be 
available upon criminals, crimes and criminology. Among the 
books brought me in response, to this morbid yearning was one 
with the title, “The Book of the Damned.” 

I opened it, not at the 1 first page, looking for Cartouche Jona¬ 
than Wild, Pranzini, Lacenaire, and read the following passage: 

“The fittest survive. 

What is meant by the fittest? 

Not the strongest; not the cleverest— 

Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. 

There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing 
does survive. 

‘Fitness’ then, is only another name for ‘survival.’ ” 

i 


2 


INTRODUCTION 


Finding no Guiteau or Troppmann here, I let the pages slide 
under my fingers and stopped at this: 

“My own pseudo-conclusion: 

That we’ve been damned by giants sound asleep, or by great 
scientific principles and abstractions that cannot realize them¬ 
selves: that little harlots have visited their caprices upon us; 
that clowns, with buckets of water from which they pretend to cast 
thousands of good-sized fishes have anathemized us for laughing 
disrespectfully, because, as with all clowns, underlying buffoonery 
is the desire to be taken seriously; that pale ignorances, presiding 
over microscopes by which they cannot distinguish flesh from 
nostoc or fishes’ spawn or frogs’ spawn, have visited upon us 
their wan solemnities. We’ve been damned by corpses and skele¬ 
tons and mummies, which twitch and totter with pseudo-life de¬ 
rived from conveniences.” 

With some astonishment, I continued to dip into the book, 
sounding it here and there, but did not bring up even so well- 
damned a sample of the bottom as Benedict Arnold. Instead I 
got these: 

“An object from which nets were suspended— 

Deflated balloon with its network hanging from it— 

A super-dragnet? 

That something was trawling overhead? 

The birds of Baton Rouge. 

I think that we’re fished for. It may be we’re highly esteemed 
by super-epicures somewhere.” 

. . . “Melanicus. 

That upon the wings of a super-bat, he broods over this earth 
and over other worlds, perhaps deriving something from them: 
hovers on wings or wing-like appendages, or planes that are hun¬ 
dreds of miles from tip to tip—a super-evil thing that is exploiting 
us. By Evil I mean that which makes us useful.” 

. . . “British India Company’s steamer Patna , while on a 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


voyage up the Persian Gulf. In May, 1880, on a dark night about 
11:30 p. m. there suddenly appeared on each side of the ship an 
enormous luminous wheel, whirling around, the spokes of which 
seemed to brush the ship along . . . and although the wheels must 
have been some 500 or 600 yards in diameter, the spokes could be 
distinctly seen all the way round.” 

... “I shall have to accept that, floating in the sky of this 
earth, there are often fields of ice as extensive as those on the 
Arctic Ocean—volumes of water in which are many fishes and 
frogs—tracts of land covered with caterpillars—” 

. . . “Black rains—red rains—the fall of a thousand tons of 
butter. 

Jet black snow—pink snow—blue hailstones—hailstones fla¬ 
vored like oranges. 

Punk and silk and charcoal.” 

... “A race of tiny beings 

They crucified cockroaches. 

Exquisite beings—” 

But here I turned back to the beginning and read this vigorous 
and astonishing book straight through, and then re-read it for the 
pleasure it gave me in the way of its writing and in the substance 
of what it told. Dore should have illustrated it, I thought, or 
Blake. Here indeed was a “brush dipped in earthquake and 
eclipse”; though the wildest mundane earthquakes are but earth¬ 
quakes in teapots compared to what goes on in the visions con¬ 
jured up before us by Mr. Charles Fort. For he deals in 
nightmare, not on the planetary, but on the constellational scale, 
and the imagination of one who staggers along after him is fre¬ 
quently left gasping and flaccid. 

Now he has followed “The Book of the Damned” with “New 
Lands” pointing incidentally to Mars as “the San Salvador of 
the Sky,” and renewing his passion for the dismayingly significant 
“damned—” tokens and strange hints excluded by the historically 
mercurial acceptances of “Dogmatic Science.” Of his attack on 


4 


INTRODUCTION 


the astronomers it can at least be said that the literature of indig¬ 
nation is enriched by it. 

To the “university-trained mind” here is wildness almost as 
wild as Roger Bacon’s once appeared to be; though of course even 
the layest of lay brothers must not assume that all wild science 
will in time become accepted law, as some of Roger’s did. Retort 
to Mr. Fort must be left to the outraged astronomer, if indeed any 
astronomer could feel himself so little outraged as to offer a retort. 
Lay brethren are outside the quarrel and must content themselves 
with gratitude to a man who writes two such books as “New 
Lands” and “The Book of the Damned”; gratitude for passages 
and pictures—moving pictures—of such cyclonic activity and di¬ 
mensions that a whole new area of a reader’s imagination stirs in 
amazement and is brought to life. 


Booth Tarkington. 





PART I 


























NEW LANDS 


CHAPTER ONE 

L ANDS in the sky— 

That they are nearby— 

That they do not move. 

I take for a principle that all being is the infinitely serial, and 
that whatever has been will, with differences of particulars, be 
again— 

The last quarter of the fifteenth century—land to the west! 

This first quarter of the twentieth century—we shall have revela¬ 
tions. 

There will be data. There will be many. Behind this book, 
unpublished collectively, or held as constituting its reserve forces, 
there are other hundreds of data, but independently I take for a 
principle that all existence is a flux and a re-flux, by which periods 
of expansion follow periods of contraction; that few men can even 
think widely when times are narrow times, but that human con¬ 
strictions can not repress extensions of thoughts and lives and en¬ 
terprise and dominion when times are wider times—so then that 
the pageantry of foreign coasts that was revealed behind blank 
horizons after the year 1492, can not be, in the course of develop¬ 
ment, the only astounding denial of seeming vacancy—that the 
spirit, or the animation, and the stimulations and the needs of the 
fifteenth century are all appearing again, and that requital may 
appear again— . 

Aftermath of war, as in the year 1492: demands for readjust¬ 
ments; crowded and restless populations, revolts against limita¬ 
tions, intolerable restrictions against emigrations. The young man 
is no longer urged, or is no longer much inclined, to go westward. 
He will, or must, go somewhere. If directions alone no longer 
invite him, he may hear invitation in dimensions. There are 

7 


8 


NEW LANDS 


many persons, who have not investigated for themselves, who think 
that both poles of this earth have been discovered. There are 
too many women traveling luxuriously in “Darkest Africa.” Es¬ 
kimos of Disco, Greenland, are publishing a newspaper. There 
must be outlet, or there will be explosion— 

Outlet and invitation and opportunity— 

San Salvadors of the Sky—a Plymouth Rock that hangs in the 
heavens of Servia—a foreign coast from which storms have brought 
materials to the city of Birmingham, England. 

Or the mentally freezing, or dying, will tighten their prohibi¬ 
tions, and the chill of their censorships will contract, to extinc¬ 
tion, our lives, which, without sin, represent matter deprived of 
motion. Their ideal is Death, or approximate death, warmed over 
occasionally only enough to fringe with uniform, decorous icicles— 
from which there will be no escape, if, for the living and sinful 
and adventurous there be not San Salvadors somewhere else, a 
Plymouth Rock of reversed significance, coasts of sky-continents. 

But every consciousness that we have of needs, and all hosts, 
departments, and sub-divisions of data that indicate the possible 
requital of needs are opposed—not by the orthodoxy of the com¬ 
mon Puritans, but by the Puritans of Science, and their austere, 
disheartening, dried or frozen orthodoxy. 

Islands of space—see Set. Amer., vol. this and p. that—ac¬ 
counts from the Repts. of the Brit. Assoc, for the Ad. of Sci — 
Nature etc.—except for an occasional lapse, our sources of data 
will not be sneered at. As to our interpretations, I consider them, 
myself, more as suggestions and gropings and stimuli. Islands of 
space and the rivers and the oceans of an extra-geography— 

Stay and let salvation damn you—or straddle an auroral beam 
and paddle it from Rigel to Betelgeuse. If there be no accepting 
that there are such rivers and oceans beyond this earth, stay and 
travel upon steamships with schedules that can be depended upon, 
food so well cooked and well served, comfort looked after so 
carefully—or some day board the thing that was seen over the city 
of Marseilles, Aug. 19, 1887, and ride on that, bearing down upon 
the moon, giving up for lost, escaping collision by the swirl of 
a current that was never heard of before. 

There are, or there are not, nearby cities of foreign existences. 


NEW LANDS 


9 


They have, or they have not, been seen, by reflection, in the skies, 
of Sweden and Alaska. As one will. Whether acceptable, or too 
preposterous to be thought of, our data are of rabbles of living 
things that have been seen in the sky; also of processions of 
military beings—monsters that live in the sky and die in the sky, 
and spatter this earth with their red life-fluids—ships from other 
worlds that have been seen by millions of the inhabitants of this 
earth, exploring, night after night, in the sky of France, England, 
New England, and Canada—signals from the moon, which, accord¬ 
ing to notable indications, may not be so far from this earth as 
New York is from London—definitely reported and, in some in¬ 
stances, multitudinously witnessed, events that have been disre¬ 
garded by our opposition— 

A scientific priestcraft— 

“Thou shalt not!” is crystallized in its frozen textbooks. 

I have data upon data upon data of new lands that are not far 
away. I hold out expectations and the materials of new hopes 
and new despairs and new triumphs and new tragedies. I hold 
out my hands to point to the sky—there is a hierarchy that utters 
me manacles, I think—there is a dominant force that pronounces 
prisons that have dogmas for walls for such thoughts. It binds 
its formulas around all attempting extensions. 

But sounds have been heard in the sky. They have been heard, 
and it is not possible to destroy the records of them. They have 
been heard. In their repetitions and regularities of series and 
intervals, we shall recognize perhaps interpretable language. 
Columns of clouds, different-colored by sunset, have vibrated to 
the artillery of other worlds like the strings of a cosmic harp, and 
I conceive of no buzzing of insects that can forever divert atten¬ 
tion from such dramatic reverberations. Language has shone 
upon the dark parts of the moon: luminous exclamations that 
have fluttered in the lunar crater Copernicus; the eloquence of 
the starlike light in Aristarchus; hymns that have been chanted 
in lights and shades upon Linne; the wilder, luminous music in 

Plato— ( 

But not a sound that has been heard in the sky, not a thing 
that has fallen from the sky, not a thing that “should not be,” 
but that has nevertheless been seen in the sky can we, with 


10 


NEW LANDS 


any sense of freedom, investigate, until first we find out about 
the incubus that in the past has suffocated even speculation. I 
shall find out for myself: anybody who cares to may find out with 
me. A ship from a foreign world does, or does not, sail in the 
sky of this earth. It is in accordance with observations by 
hundreds of thousands of witnesses that this event has taken 
place, and, if the time be when aeronautics upon this earth is 
of small development, that is an important circumstance to con¬ 
sider—but there is suffocation upon the whole occurrence and every 
one of its circumstances. Nobody can give good attention to the 
data, if diverting his mind is consciousness, altogether respect¬ 
ful, of the scientists who say that there are no other phy¬ 
sical worlds except planets, millions of miles away, distances 
that conceivable vessels could not traverse. I should like to 
let loose, in an opening bombardment, the data of the little 
black stones of Birmingham, which, time after time, in a period 
of eleven years, fell obviously from a fixed point in the sky, but 
such a release, now, would be wasted. It will have to be pre¬ 
pared for. Now each one would say to himself that there are 
no such fixed points in the sky. Why not? Because astron¬ 
omers say that there are not. 

But there is something else that is implied. Implied is the 
general supposition that the science of astronomy represents all 
that is most accurate, most exacting, painstaking, semi-religious 
in human thought, and is therefore authoritative. 

Anybody who has not been through what I’ve been through, in 
investigating this subject, would ask what are the bases and 
what is the consistency of the science of astronomy. The mis¬ 
erable, though at times amusing, confusions of thought that I 
find in this field of supposed research word my inquiry dif¬ 
ferently—what of dignity, or even of decency, is in it? 

Phantom dogmas, with their tails clutching at vacancies, are 
coiled around our data. 

Serpents of pseudo-thought are stifling history. 

They are squeezing “Thou shalt not!” upon Development. 

New Lands—and the horrors and lights, explosions and music 
of them; rabbles of hellhounds and the march of military angels. 
But they are Promised Lands, and first must we traverse a des- 


NEW LANDS 


11 


ert. There is ahead of us a waste of parallaxes and spectro¬ 
grams and triangulations. It may be weary going through a 
waste of astronomic determinations, but that depends— 

If, out of a dreary, academic zenith shower betrayals of frailty, 
folly, and falsification, they will be manna to our malices— 

Or sterile demonstrations be warmed by our cheerful cyni¬ 
cisms into delicious little lies—blossoms and fruits of unexpected 
oases— 

Rocks to strike with our suspicions—and the gush of expos¬ 
ures foaming with new implications. 

Tryants, dragons, giants—and, if all be dispatched with the 
skill and the might and the triumph over awful odds of the hero 
who himself tells his story— 

I hear three yells from some hitherto undiscovered, grotesque 
critter at the very entrance of the desert. 


CHAPTER TWO 


46PREDICTION Confirmed!” 

Sl “Another Verification!” 

“A Third Verification of Prediction!” 

Three times, in spite of its long-established sobriety, the 
Journal of the Franklin Institute, vols. 106 and 107, reels with an 
astronomer’s exhilarations. He might exult and indulge him¬ 
self, and that would be no affair of ours, and, in fact, we’d 
like to see everybody happy, perhaps, but it is out of these three 
chanticleerities by Prof. Pliny Chase that we materialize our opin¬ 
ion that, so far as methods and strategies are concerned, no par¬ 
ticular differences can be noted between astrologers and astron¬ 
omers, and that both represent engulfment in Dark Ages. Lord 
Bacon pointed out that the astrologers had squirmed into prestige 
and emolument by shooting at marks, disregarding their misses, 
and recording their hits with unseemly advertisement. When, 
in August, 1878, Prof. Swift and Prof. Watson said that, dur¬ 
ing an eclipse of the sun, they had seen two luminous bodies 
that might be planets between Mercury and the sun, Prof. Chase 
announced that, five years before, he had made a prediction, and 
that it had been confirmed by the positions of these bodies. 
Three times, in capital letters, he screamed, or announced, ac¬ 
cording to one’s sensitiveness, or prejudices, that the “new planets” 
were in the exact positions of his calculations. Prof. Chase 
wrote that, before his time, there had been two great instances 
of astronomic calculation confirmed: the discovery of Neptune 
and the discovery of “the asteroidal belt,” a claim that is 
disingenuously worded. If by mathematical principles, or by any 
other definite principles, there has ever been one great, or little, 
instance of astronomic discovery by means of calculations, con¬ 
fusion must destroy us, in the introductory position that we take, 

12 


NEW LANDS 


13 


or expose our irresponsibility, and vitiate all that follows: that 
our data are oppressed by a tyranny of false announcements; 
that there never has been an astronomic discovery other than 
the observational or the accidental. 

In The Story of the Heavens , Sir Robert Ball’s opinion of 
the discovery of Neptune is that it is a triumph unparalled in 
the annals of science. He lavishes—the great astronomer 
Leverrier, buried for months in profound meditations—the dra¬ 
matic moment—Leverrier rises from his calculations and points 
to the sky—“Lo!” there a new planet is found. 

My desire is not so much to agonize over the single fraudulen- 
cies or delusions, as to typify the means by which the science 
of Astronomy has established and maintained itself: 

According to Leverrier, there was a planet external to Uranus; 
according to Hansen, there were two; according to Airy, “doubt¬ 
ful if there were one.” 

One planet was found—so calculated Leverrier, in his pro¬ 
found meditations. Suppose two had been found—confirmation 
of the brilliant computations by Hansen. None—the opinion of 
the great astronomer, Sir George Airy. 

Leverrier calculated that the hypothetic planet was at a dis¬ 
tance from the sun, within the limits of 35 and 37.9 times this 
earth’s distance from the sun. The new planet was found in 
a position said to be 30 times this earth’s distance from the sun. 
The discrepancy was so great that, in the United States, astron¬ 
omers refused to accept that Neptune had been discovered by 
means of calculation: see such publications as the American 
Journal of Science, of the period. Upon August 29, 1849, Dr. 
Babinet read, to the French Academy, a paper in which he showed 
that, by the observations of three years, the revolution of Nep¬ 
tune would have to be placed at 165 years. Between the limits 
of 207 and 233 years was the period that Leverrier had cal¬ 
culated. Simultaneously, in England, Adams had calculated. 
Upon Sept. 2, 1846, after he had, for at least a month, been 
charting the stars in the region toward which Adams had pointed, 
Prof. Challis wrote to Sir George Airy that this work would oc¬ 
cupy his time for three more months. This indicates the extent 
of the region toward which Adams had pointed. 


14 


NEW LANDS 


The discovery of the asteroids, or in Prof. Chase’s not very 
careful language, the discovery of the “asteroidal belt as deduced 
from Bode’s Law”: \, 

We learn that Baron Von Zach had formed a society of twenty- 
four astronomers to search, in accordance with Bode’s Law, for 
“a planet”—and not “a group,” not “an asteroidal belt”—be¬ 
tween Jupiter and Mars. The astronomers had organized, divid¬ 
ing the zodiac into twenty-four zones, assigning each zone to an 
astronomer. They searched. They found not one asteroid. 
Seven or eight hundred are now known. 

Philosophical Magazine, 12-62: 

That Piazzi, the discoverer of the first asteroid, had not been 
searching for a hypothetic body, as deduced from Bode’s Law, 
but, upon an investigation of his own, had been charting stars 
in the constellation Taurus, night of Jan. 1, 1801. He noticed 
a light that he thought had moved, and, with his mind a blank, 
so far as asteroids and brilliant deductions were concerned, an¬ 
nounced that he had discovered a comet. 

As an instance of the crafty way in which some astronomers 
now tell the story, see Sir Robert Ball’s Story of the Heavens, 
p. 230: 

The organization of the astronomers of Lilienthal, but never 
a hint that Piazzi was not one of them—“the search for a small 
planet was soon rewarded by a success that has rendered the 
evening of the first day of the nineteenth century memorable in 
astronomy.” Ball tells of Piazzi’s charting of the stars, and 
makes it appear that Piazzi had charted stars as a means of 
finding asteroids deductively, rewarded soon by success, whereas 
Piazzi had never heard of such a search, and did not know an 
asteroid when he saw one. “This laborious and accomplished 
astronomer had organized an ingenious system of exploring the 
heavens, which was eminently calculated to discriminate a planet 
among the starry host ... at length he was rewarded by a suc¬ 
cess which amply compensated him for all his toil.” 

Prof. Chase—these two great instances not of mere discovery, 
but of discovery by means of calculation according to him— 
now the subject of his supposition that he, too, could calculate 
triumphantly—the verification depended upon the accuracy of 


NEW LANDS 


15 


Prof. Swift and Prof. Watson in recording the positions of the 
bodies that they had announced— 

Sidereal Messenger , 6-84: 

Prof. Colbert, Superintendent of Dearborn Observatory, 
leader of the party of which Prof. Swift was a member, says that 
the observations by Swift and Watson agreed, because Swift had 
made his observations agree with Watson’s. The accusation is 
not that Swift had falsely announced a discovery of two un¬ 
known bodies, but that his precise determining of positions had 
occurred after Watson’s determinations had been published. 

Popular Astronomy, 7-13: 

Prof. Asaph Hall writes that, several days after the eclipse, 
Prof. Watson told him that he had seen “a” luminous body near 
the sun, and that his declaration that he had seen two unknown 
bodies was not made until after Swift had been heard from. 

Perched upon two delusions, Prof. Chase crowed his false 
raptures. The unknown bodies, whether they ever had been in 
the orbit of his calculations or not, were never seen again. 

So it is our expression that hosts of astronomers calculate, and 
calculation-mad, calculate and calculate and calculate, and that, 
when one of them does point within 600,000,000 miles (by con¬ 
ventional measurements) of something that is found, he is the 
Leverrier of the text books; that the others are the Prof. Chases 
not of the text books. 

As to most of us, the symbols of the infinitesimal calculus 
humble independent thinking into the conviction that used to be 
enforced by drops of blood from a statue. In the farrago and 
conflicts of daily lives, it is relief to feel such a rapport with 
finality, in a religious sense, or in a mathematical sense.. So 
then, if the seeming of exactness in Astronomy be either infa¬ 
mously, or carelessly and laughingly, brought about by the con¬ 
nivances of which Swift and Watson were accused, and if the 
prestige of Astronomy be founded upon nothing but huge capital 
letters and exclamation points, or upon the disproportionality 
of balancing one Leverrier against hundreds of Chases, it may 
not be better that we should know this, if then to those of us 
who, in the religious sense, have nothing to depend upon, comes 
deprivation of even this last, lingering seeming of foundation, 


16 


NEW LANDS 


or seeming existence of exactness and realness, somewhere— 

Except—that, if there be nearby lands in the sky and beings 
from foreign worlds that visit this earth, that is a great sub¬ 
ject, and the trash that is clogging an epoch must be cleared away. 

We have had a little sermon upon the insecurity of human 
triumphs, and, having brought it to a climax, now seems to be 
the time to stop; but there is still an involved “triumph” and 
I’d not like to have inefficiency, as well as probably everything 
else, charged against us— 

The Discovery of Uranus. 

We mention this stimulus to the text book writers’ ecstasies, 
because out of phenomena of the planet Uranus, the “Neptune- 
triumph” developed. For Richard Proctor’s reasons for argu¬ 
ing that this discovery was not accidental, see Old and New As¬ 
tronomy, p. 646. Philosophical Transactions, 71-492—a paper 
by Herschel—“An account of a comet discovered on March 13, 
1781.” A year went by, and not an astronomer in the world knew 
a new planet when he saw one: then Lexell did find out that the 
supposed comet was a planet. 

Statues from which used to drip the life-blood of a parasitic 
cult— 

Structures of parabolas from which bleed equations— 

As we go along we shall develop the acceptance that astron¬ 
omers might as well try to squeeze blood from images as to try 
to seduce symbols into conclusions, because applicable mathe¬ 
matics has no more to do with planetary inter-actions than have 
statues of saints. If this denial that the calculi have place in 
gravitational astronomy be accepted, the astronomers lose their 
supposed god; they become an unfocussed priesthood; the stamina 
of their arrogance wilts. We begin with the next to the simplest 
problem in celestial mechanics: that is the formulation of the 
inter-actions of the sun and the moon and this earth. In the 
highest of mathematics, final, sacred mathematics, can this 
next to the simplest problem in so-called mathematical astron¬ 
omy be solved? 

It can not be solved. 

Every now and then, somebody announces that he has solved 
the Problem of the Three Bodies, but it is always an incomplete, 


NEW LANDS 


17 


or impressionistic, demonstration, compounded of abstractions, 
and ignoring the conditions of bodies in space. Over and over 
we shall find vacancy under supposed achievements; elaborate 
structures that are pretensions without foundation. Here we learn 
that astronomers can not formulate the inter-actions of three 
bodies in space, but calculate anyway, and publish what they 
call the formula of a planet that is inter-acting with a thou¬ 
sand other bodies. They explain. It will be one of our most 
lasting impressions of astronomers: they explain and explain 
and explain. The astronomers explain that, though in finer 
terms, the mutual effects of three planets can not be determined, 
so dominant is the power of the sun that all other effects are 
negligible. 

Before the discovery of Uranus, there was no way by which 
the miracles of the astro-magicians could be tested. They said 
that their formulas worked out, and external inquiry was panic- 
stricken at the mention of a formula. But Uranus was dis¬ 
covered, and the magicians were called upon to calculate his path. 
They did calculate, and, if Uranus had moved in a regular path, 
I do not mean to say that astronomers or college boys have no 
mathematics by which to determine anything so simple. 

They computed the orbit of Uranus. 

He went somewhere else. 

They explained. They computed some more. They went on 
explaining and computing, year in and year out, and the planet 
Uranus kept on going somewhere else. Then they conceived of a 
powerful perturbing force beyond Uranus—so then that at the 
distance of Uranus the sun is not so dominant—in which case 
the effects of Saturn upon Uranus and Uranus upon Saturn are 
not so negligible—on through complexes of inter-actions that 
infinitely intensify by cumulativeness into a black outlook for 
the whole brilliant system. The palaeo-astronomers calculated, 
and for more than fifty years pointed variously at the sky. 
Finally two of them, of course agreeing upon the general back¬ 
ground of Uranus, pointed within distances that are conventionally 
supposed to have been about six hundred millions of miles of 
Neptune, and now it is religiously, if not insolently, said that 
the discovery of Neptune was not accidental— 


18 


NEW LANDS 


That the test of that which is not accidental is ability to do it 
again— 

That it is within the power of anybody, who does not know a 
hyperbola from a cosine, to find out whether the astronomers are 
led by a cloud of rubbish by day and a pillar of bosh by night— 

If, by the magic of his mathematics, any astronomer could have 
pointed to the position of Neptune, let him point to the planet 
past Neptune. According to the same reasoning by which a 
planet past Uranus was supposed to be, a Trans-Neptunian planet 
may be supposed to be. Neptune shows perturbations similar to 
those of Uranus. 

According to Prof. Todd there is such a planet, and it re¬ 
volves around the sun once in 375 years. There are two, ac¬ 
cording to Prof. Forbes, one revolving once in 1,000 years, and 
the other once in 5,000 years. See Macpherson’s A Century’s 
Progress in Astronomy. It exists, according to Dr. Eric Doo¬ 
little, and revolves once in 283 years ( Sci. Amer., 122-641). 
According to Mr. Hind it revolves once in 1,600 years ( Smith- 
son .. Miscell. Cols., 20-20). 

So then we have found out some things, and, relatively to the 
oppressions that we felt from our opposition, they are reassur¬ 
ing. But also are they depressing. Because, if, in this exist¬ 
ence of ours, there is no prestige higher than that of astronomic 
science, and, if that seeming of substantial renown has been 
achieved by a composition of bubbles, what of anything like 
soundness must there be to all lesser reputes and achievements? 

Let three bodies inter-act. There is no calculus by which their 
inter-actions can be formulated. But there are a thousand inter¬ 
acting bodies in this solar system—or supposed solar system 
—and we find that the highest prestige in our existence is built 
upon the tangled assertions that there are magicians who can 
compute in a thousand quantities, though they can not compute 
in three. 

Then all other so-called human triumphs, or moderate succes¬ 
ses, products of anybody’s reasoning processes and labors—and 
what are they, if higher than them all, more academic, austere, 
rigorous, exact are the methods and the processes of the astron- 


NEW LANDS 


19 


omers? What can be thought of our whole existence, its nature 
and its destiny? 

That our existence, a thing within one solar system, or supposed 
solar system, is a stricken thing that is mewling through space, 
shocking able-minded, healthy systems with the sores on its sun, 
its ghastly moons, its civilizations that are all broken out 
with sciences; a celestial leper, holding out doddering expanses 
into which charitable systems drop golden comets? If it be the 
leprous thing that our findings seem to indicate, there is no en¬ 
couragement for us to go on. We can not discover: we can only 
betray new symptoms. If I be a part of such a stricken thing, 
I know of nothing but sickness and sores and rags to reason with: 
my data will be postules; my interpretations will be inflamma¬ 
tions—> 


CHAPTER THREE 


S OUTHERN plantations and the woolly heads of negroes 
pounding the ground—cries in northern regions and round 
white faces turned to the sky—fiery globes in the sky—a study 
in black, white, and golden formations in one general glow. 
Upon the night of November 13-14, 1833, occurred the most sen¬ 
sational celestial spectacle of the nineteenth century: for six 
hours fiery meteors gushed from the heavens, and were visible 
along the whole Atlantic coast of the United States. 

One supposes that astronomers do not pound the ground with 
their heads, and presumably they do not screech, but they have 
feelings just the same. They itched. Here was something to 
formulate. When he hears of something new and unquestionable 
in the sky, an astronomer is diseased with ill-suppressed equa¬ 
tions. Symbols persecute him for expression. His is the frenzy 
of someone who would stop automobiles, railroad trains, bicycles, 
all things, to measure them; run, with a yardstick, after sparrows, 
flies, all persons passing his door. This is supposed to be scien¬ 
tific, but it can be monomaniac. Very likely the distress and the 
necessity of Prof. Olmstead were keenest. He was the first to 
formulate. He “demonstrated” that these meteors, known as the 
Leonids, revolved around the sun once in six months. 

They didn’t. 

Then Prof. Newton “demonstrated” that the “real” period 
was thirty-three and a quarter years. But this was done empir¬ 
ically, and that is not divine, nor even aristocratic, and the thing 
would have to be done rationally, or mathematically, by some¬ 
one, because, if there be not mathematical treatment, in gravita¬ 
tional terms, of such phenomena, astronomers are in reduced 
circumstances. It was Dr. Adams, who, emboldened with his 
experience in not having to point anywhere near Neptune, but 
nevertheless being acclaimed by all patriotic Englishmen as the 
real discoverer of Neptune, mathematically “confirmed” Prof. 

20 


NEW LANDS 


21 


Newton’s “findings.” Dr. Adams predicted that the Leonids 
would return in November, 1866 and in November, 1899, oc¬ 
cupying several years, upon each occasion, in passing a point in 
this earth’s orbit. 

There were meteors upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1866. They 
were plentiful. They often are in the middle of November. 
They no more resembled the spectacle of 1833 than an ordinary 
shower resembles a cloudburst. But the “demonstration” re¬ 
quired that there should be an equal display, or, according to 
some aspects, a greater display, upon the corresponding night 
of the next year. There was a display, the next year; but it 
was in the sky of the United States, and was not seen in England. 
Another occurrence nothing like that of 1833 was reported from 
the United States. 

By conventional theory, this earth was in a vast, wide stream 
of meteors, the earth revolving so as to expose successive parts 
to bombardment. So keenly did Richard Proctor visualize the 
earth so immersed and so bombarded, that, when nothing was seen 
in England, he explained. He spent most of his life explain¬ 
ing. In the Student, 2-254, he wrote: “Had the morning of 
November 14, 1867 been clear in England, we should have seen 
the commencement of the display, but not its more brilliant 
part.” 

We have had some experience with the “triumphs” of astron¬ 
omers: we have some suspicions as to their greatly advertised 
accuracy. We shall find out for ourselves whether the morn¬ 
ing of Nov. 14, 1867 was clear enough in England or not. 
We suspect that it was a charming morning, in England— 

Monthly Notices, R. A. S.’ 28-32: 

Report by E. J. Lowe, Highfield House, night of Nov. 13-14, 
1867: 

“Clear at 1.10 A. m.; high, thin cumuli, at 2 A. m., but sky 
not covered until 3.10 a. m., and the moon’s place visible until 
3.55 A. m.; sky not overcast until 5.50 A. m.” 

The determination of the orbital period of thirty-three years 
and a quarter, but with appearances of a period of thirty-three 
years, was arrived at by Prof. Newton by searching old records, 
finding that, in an intersection-period of thirty-three years, there 


22 


NEW LANDS 


had been extraordinary meteoric displays, from the year 902 A. d. 
to the year 1833 A. d. He reminds me of an investigator who 
searched old records for appearances of Halley’s comet, and 
found something that he identified as Halley’s comet, exactly 
on time, every seventy-five years, back to times of the Roman 
Empire. See the Edinburgh Review, vol. 66. It seems that he 
did not know that orthodoxy does not attribute exactly a seventy- 
five year period to Halley’s comet. He got what he went look¬ 
ing for, anyway. I have no disposition for us to enjoy ourselves 
at Prof. Newton’s expense, because, surely enough, his method, if 
regarded as only experimental, or tentative, is legitimate enough, 
though one does suspect him of very loose behavior in his pick¬ 
ing and choosing. But Dr. Adams announced that, upon mathe¬ 
matical grounds, he had arrived at the same conclusion. 

The test: 

The next return of the Leonids were predicted for November, 
1899. 

Memoirs of the British Astronomical Association, 9-6: 

“No meteoric event ever before aroused such widespread interest, 
or so grievously disappointed anticipation.” 

There were no Leonids in November, 1899. 

It was explained. They would be seen next year. 

There were no Leonids in November, 1900. 

It was explained. They would be seen next year. 

No Leonids. 

Vaunt and inflation and parade of the symbols of the infin¬ 
itesimal calculus; the pomp of vectors, and the hush that sur¬ 
rounds quaternions: but when an axis of co-ordinates loses its 
rectitude, in the service of a questionable selection, disciplined 
symbols become a rabble. The Most High of 'Mathematics 
—and one of his supposed prophets points to the sky. No¬ 
where near where he points, something is found. He points 
to a date—nothing happens. 

Prof. Serviss, in Astronomy in a Nutshell, explains. He ex¬ 
plains that the Leonids did not appear, when they “should” 
have appeared, because Jupiter and Saturn had altered their 
orbits. 

Back in the times of the Crusades, and nothing was disturb- 


NEW LANDS 


23 


ing the Leonids—and if you’re stronger for dates than I am, 
think of some more dates, and nothing was altering the orbit 
of the Leonids discovery of America, and the Spanish Armada, 
in 1588, which, by some freak, I always remember, and no ef¬ 
fects by Jupiter and Saturn—French Revolution and on to the 
year 1866, and still nothing the matter with the Leonids—but, 
once removed from “discovery” and “identification,” and that’s 
the end of their period, diverted by Jupiter and Saturn, old things 
that had been up in the sky at least as long as they had been. 
If we’re going to accept the calculi at all, the calculus of prob¬ 
abilities must have a hearing. My own opinion, based upon 
reading many accounts of November meteors, is that decidedly 
the display of 1833 did not repeat in 1866: that a false priest 
sinned and that an equally false highpriest gave him sanction. 

The tragedy goes comically on. I feel that, to all good Neo¬ 
astronomers, I can recommend the following serenity from an 
astronomer who was unperturbed by what happened to his 
science, in November, 1899, and some more Novembers— 

Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 252: 

That the meteoric display of 1899 had failed to appear—“as 
had been predicted by Dr. Downing and Dr. Johnstone Stoney.” 

One starts to enjoy this disguisement, thinking of virtually 
all the astronomers in the world who had predicted the return 
of the Leonids, and the finding, by Bryant, of two who had not, 
and his recording only the opinion of these two, coloring so as 
to look like another triumph—but we may thank our sorely 
stimulated suspiciousness for still richer enjoyment— 

That even these two said no such saving thing— 

Nature , Nov. 9, 1899: 

Dr. Downing and Dr. Stoney, instead of predicting failure of 
the Leonids to appear, advise watch for them several hours later 
than had been calculated. 

I conceive of the astronomers’ fictitious paradise as mal- 
architectural with corrupted equations, and paved with rotten 
symbols. Seeming pure, white fountains of formal vanities— 
boasts that are gushing from decomposed triumphs. We shall 
find their furnishings shabby with tarnished comets. We turn 
expectantly to the subject of comets; or we turn cynically to 


24 


NEW LANDS 


the subject. We turn maliciously to the subject of comets. 
Nevertheless, threading the insecurities of our various feelings, 
is a motif that is the steady essence of Neo-astronomy: 

That, in celestial phenomena, as well as in all other fields of 
research, the irregular, or the unformulable, or the uncapturable, 
is present in at least equal representation with the uniform: that, 
given any clear, definite, seemingly unvarying thing in the 
heavens, co-existently is something of wantonness or irrespon¬ 
sibility, bizarre and incredible, according to the standards of 
purists—that the science of Astronomy concerns itself with only 
one aspect of existence, because of course there can be no sci¬ 
ence of the obverse phenomena—which is good excuse for so 
enormously disregarding, if we must have the idea that there 
are real sciences, but which shows the hopelessness of positively 
attempting. 

The story of the Comets, as not told in Mr. Chambers’ book 
of that title is almost unparalleled in the annals of humilia¬ 
tion. When a comet is predicted to return, that means faith in 
the Law of Gravitation. It is Newtonism that comets, as well 
as planets, obey the Law of Gravitation, and move in one of 
the conic sections. When a comet does not return when it 
“should,” there is no refuge for an astronomer to say that plan¬ 
ets perturbed it, because one will ask why he did not include 
such factors in his calculations, if these phenomena be subject 
to mathematical treatment. In his book, Mr. Chambers avoids, 
or indicates that he never heard of, a great deal that will re¬ 
ceive cordiality from us, but he does publish a list of predicted 
comets that did not return. Writing, in 1909, he mentions 
others for which he had hopes: 

Brook’s First Periodic Comet (1886, IV)—“We must see what 
the years 1909 and 1910 bring forth.” This is pretty indefinite 
anticipation—however, nothing was brought forth, according to 
Monthly Notices, R. A. S., 1909 and 1910: the Brooks’ comet 
that is recorded is Brooks’, 1889. Giacobini’s Second Periodic 
Comet (1900, III)—not seen in 1907—“so we shall not have 
a chance of knowing more about it until 1914.” No more 
known about it in 1914. Borelly’s Comet (1905, II)—“Its 


NEW LANDS 


25 


expected return, in 1911 or 1912, will be awaited with interest.” 
This is pretty indefinite awaiting: it is now said that this comet 
did return upon Sept 19, 1911. Denning’s Second Periodic 
Comet (1894, I)_expected, in 1909, but not seen up to Mr. 
Chambers’ time of writing—no mention in Monthly Notices. 
Swift s Comet, of Nov. 20, 1894—“must be regarded as lost, 
unless it should be found in December, 1912.” No mention of 
it in Monthly Notices. 

Three comets were predicted to return in 1913—not one of 
them returned ( Monthly Notices, 74-326). 

Once upon a time, armed with some of the best and latest 
cynicisms, I was hunting for prey in the Magazine of Science, 
and came upon an account of a comet that was expected in 
the year 1848. I supposed that the thing had been positively 
predicted, and very likely failed to appear, and, for such com¬ 
mon game, had no interest. But I came upon the spoor of dis¬ 
grace, in the word “triumph”—“If it does come, it will afford 
another astronomical triumph” (Mag. of Sci., 1848-107). The 
astronomers had predicted the return of a great comet in the 
year 1848. In Monthly Notices, April, 1847, Mr. Hind says 
that the result of his calculations had satisfied him that the 
identification had been complete, and that, in all probability, 
“the comet must be very near.” Accepting Prof. Madler’s de¬ 
terminations, he predicted that the comet would return to posi¬ 
tion nearest the sun, about the end of February, 1848. 

No comet. 

The astronomers explained. I don’t know what the mind of 
an astronomer looks like, but I think of a fizzle with excuses 
revolving around it. A writer in the American Journal of Sci¬ 
ence, 2-9-442, explains excellently. It seems that, when the 
comet failed to return, Mr. Barber, of Etwell, again went over 
the calculations. He found that, between the years 1556 and 
1592, the familiar attractions of Jupiter and Saturn had dimin¬ 
ished the comet’s period by 263 days, but that something else 
had wrought an effect that he set down positively at 751 days, 
with a resulting retardation of 488 days. This is magic that 
would petrify, with chagrin, the arteries of the hemorrhagicalest 


26 


NEW LANDS 


statue that ever convinced the faithful—reaching back through 
three centuries of inter-actions, which, without divine insight, 
are unimaginable when occurring in three seconds— 

But there was no comet. 

The astronomers explained. They went on calculating, and 
ten years later were still calculating. See Recreative Science, 
1860-139. It would be heroic were it not mania. What was 
the matter with Mr. Barber, of Etwell, and the intellectual ten¬ 
tacles that he had thrust through centuries is not made clear 
in most of the contemporaneous accounts; but, in the year 1857, 
Mr. Hind published a pamphlet and explained. It seems that 
researches by Littrow had given new verification to a path that 
had been computed for the comet, and that nothing had been 
the matter with Mr. Barber, of Etwell, except his insufficiency of 
data, which had been corrected. Mr. Hind predicted. He 
pointed to the future, but he pointed like someone closing a 
thumb and spreading four fingers. Mr. Hind said that, accord¬ 
ing to Halley’s calculations, the comet would arrive in the sum¬ 
mer of 1865. However, an acceleration of five years had been 
discovered, so that the time should be set down for the middle 
of August, 1860. However, according to Mr. Hind’s calculated 
orbit, the comet might return in the summer of 1864. However, 
allowing for acceleration, “the comet is found to be due early in 
August, 1858.” 

Then Bomme calculated. He predicted that the comet would 
return upon August 2, 1858. 

There was no comet. 

The astronomers went on calculating. They predicted that 
the comet would return upon August 22, 1860. 

No comet. 

But I think that a touch of mercy is a luxury that we can 
afford; anyway, we’ll have to be merciful or monotonous. For 
variety we shall switch from a comet that did not appear to one 
that did appear. Upon the night of June 30, 1861, a magnificent 
humiliator appeared in the heavens. One of the most brilliant 
luminosities of modern times appeared as suddenly as if it had 
dropped through the shell of our solar system—if it be a solar 
system. There were letters in the newspapers; correspondents 


NEW LANDS 


27 


wanted to know why this extraordinary object had not been seen 
coming, by astronomers. Mr. Hind explained. He wrote that 
the comet was a small object, and consequently had not been 
seen coming by astronomers. No one could deny the magnificence 
of the comet; nevertheless Mr. Hind declared that it was very 
small, looking so large because it was near this earth. This is 
not the later explanation: nowadays it is said that the comet 
had been in southern skies, where it had been observed. All con¬ 
temporaneous astronomers agreed that the comet had come down 
from the north, and not one of them thought of explaining that 
it had been invisible because it had been in the south. A lumi¬ 
nosity, with a mist around it, altogether the apparent size of the 
moon, had burst into view. In Recreative Science, 3-143, Webb 
says that nothing like it had been seen since the year 1680. 
Nevertheless the orthodox pronouncement was that the object was 
small and would fade away as quickly as it had appeared. See 
the Athenaeum, July 6, 1861—“So small an object will soon get 
beyond our view.” (Hind) 

Popular Science Review, 1-513: 

That, in April, 1862, the thing was still visible. 

Something else that was seen under circumstances that can 
not be considered triumphant—upon Nov. 28, 1872, Prof. Klin- 
kerfues, of Gottingen, looking for Biela’s comet, saw meteors in 
the path of the expected comet. He telegraphed to Pogson, of 
Madras, to look near the star Theta Centauri, and he would see 
the comet. I’d not say that this was in the field of magic, but 
it does seem consummate. A dramatic telegram like this elec¬ 
trifies the faithful—an astronomer in the north telling an astro¬ 
nomer far in the south where to look, so definitely naming one 
special little star in skies invisible in the north. Pogson looked 
where he was told to look and announced that he saw what he 
was told to see. But at meetings of the R. A. S., Jan. 10 and 
March 14, 1873, Captain Tupman pointed out that, even if 
Biela’s comet had appeared, it would have been nowhere near 
this star. 

Among our later emotions will be indignation against all 
astronomers who say that they know whether stars are approach¬ 
ing or receding. When we arrive at that subject it will be the 


28 


NEW LANDS 


preciseness of the astronomers that will perhaps inflame us beyond 
endurance. We note here the far smaller difficulty of determin¬ 
ing whether a relatively nearby comet is coming or going. Upon 
Nov. 6, 1892, Edwin Holmes discovered a comet. In the Jour. 
B. A. A., 3-182, Holmes writes that different astronomers had 
calculated its distance from twenty million miles to two hundred 
million miles, and had determined its diameter to be all the 
way from twenty-seven thousand miles to three hundred thousand 
miles. Prof. Young said that the comet was approaching; Prof. 
Parkhurst wrote merely that the impression was that the comet 
was approaching the earth; but Prof. Berberich (Eng. Mec., 56- 
316) announced that, upon Nov. 6, Holmes’ comet had been 
36,000,000 miles from this earth, and 6,000,000 miles away upon 
the 16th, and that the approach was so rapid that, upon the 
21st the comet would touch this earth. 

The comet, which had been receding, kept on receding. 


CHAPTER FOUR 


N EVERTHELESS I sometimes doubt that astronomers rep¬ 
resent especial incompetence. They remind me too much 
of uplifters and grocers, philanthropists, expert accountants, 
makers of treaties, characters in international conferences, 
psychic researchers, biologists. The astronomers seem to me about 
as capitalists seem to socialists, and about as socialists seem to 
capitalists, or about as Presbyterians seem to Baptists; as Demo¬ 
crats seem to Republicans, or as artists of one school seem to artists 
of another school. If the basic fallacies, or the absence of base, 
in every specialization of thought can be seen by the units of its 
opposition, why then we see that all supposed foundations in our 
whole existence are myths, and that all discussion and supposed 
progress are the conflicts of phantoms and the overthrow of old 
delusions by new delusions. Nevertheless I am searching for 
some wider expression that will rationalize all of us—conceiving 
that what we call irrationality is our view of parts and func¬ 
tions out of relation to an underlying whole; an underlying 
something that is working out its development in terms of planets 
and acids and bugs, rivers and labor unions and cyclones, poli¬ 
ticians and islands and astronomers. Perhaps we conceive of an 
underlying nexus in which all things, in our existence, are dif¬ 
ferent manifestations—torn by its hurricanes and quaked by the 
struggles of Labor against Capital—and then, for the sake of 
balance, requiring relaxations. It has its rougher hoaxes, and 
some of the apes and some of the priests, and philosophers and 
wart hogs are nothing short of horse play; but the astronomers 
are the ironies of its less peasant-like moments—or the delicious¬ 
ness of pretending to know whether a far-away star is approach¬ 
ing or receding, and at the same time exactly predicting when a 
nearby comet, which is receding, will complete its approach. This 
is cosmic playfulness; such pleasantries enable Existence to bear 
its catastrophes. Shattered comets and sickened nations and 

29 


30 


NEW LANDS 


the hydrogenic anguishes of the sun—and there must be as¬ 
tronomers for the sake of relaxations. 

It will be important to us that the astronomers shall not be 
less unfortunate in their pronouncements upon motions of the 
stars than they have turned out to be in other respects. Espe¬ 
cially disagreeable to us is the doctrine that stars are variable be¬ 
cause dark companies revolve around them; also we prefer to 
find that nothing fit for somewhat matured minds has been deter¬ 
mined as to stars with light companions that encircle them, or 
revolve with them. If silence be the only true philosophy, and 
if every positive assertion be a myth, we should easily find re¬ 
quital for our negative preferences. 

Prof. Otto Struve was one of the highest of astronomic au¬ 
thorities, and the faithful attribute triumphs to him. Upon 
March 19, 1873, Prof. Struve announced that he had discovered 
a companion to the star Procyon. That was an interesting obser¬ 
vation, but the mere observation was not the triumph. Some 
time before, Prof. Auwers, as credulous, if not jocular, as New¬ 
ton and Leverrier and Adams, had computed the orbit of a hy¬ 
pothetic companion of Procyon’s. Upon a chart of the stars, he 
had drawn a circle around Procyon. This orbit was calculated 
in gravitational terms, and a general theme of ours is that all 
such calculations are only ideal, and relate no more to stars and 
planets or anything else than do the spotless theories of uplifters 
to events that occur as spots in the one wide daub of existence. 
Specifically we wish to discredit this “triumph” of Struve’s and 
Auwers’, but in general we continue our expression that all uses 
of the calculus of celestial mechanics are false applications, and 
that this subject is for aesthetic enjoyment only, and has no place 
in the science of astronomy, if anybody can think that there is 
such a science. So, after great labor, or after considerable en¬ 
joyment, Auwers drew a circle around Procyon, and announced 
that that was the orbit of a companion-star. Exactly at the 
point in this circle where it “should” be, upon March 19, 1873, 
Struve saw the point of light which, it may be accepted, sooner 
or later someone would see. According to Agnes Clerke (System 
of the Stars, p. 173) over and over Struve watched the point of 
light, and convinced himself that it moved as it “should” move, 


NEW LANDS 


31 


exactly in the calculated orbit. In Reminiscences of an As¬ 
tronomer, p. 138, Prof. Newcomb tells the story. According to 
him, an American astronomer then did more than confirm Struve’s 
observations: he not only saw but exactly measured the supposed 
companion. 

A defect was found between the lenses of Struve’s telescope: 
it was found that this telescope showed a similar “companion,” 
about 10" from every large star. It was found that the more 
than “confirmatory” determinations by the American astronomer 
had been upon “a long well-known star.” (Newcomb) 

Every astronomic triumph is a bright light accompanied by 
an imbecility, which may for a while make it variable with 
diminishments and then be unnoticed. Priestcrafts are not 
merely tyrannies: they’re necessities. There must be more reas¬ 
suring ways of telling this story. The good priest J. E. Gore 
(Studies in Astronomy, p. 104) tells it safely—not a thing except 
that, in the year 1873, a companion of Procyon’s was, by Struve, 
“strongly suspected.” Positive assurances of the sciences—they 
are islands of seeming stability in a cosmic jelly. We shall 
eclipse the story of Algol with some modem disclosures. In all 
minds not convinced that earnest and devoted falsifiers are hold¬ 
ing back Development, the story, if remembered at all, will soon 
renew its fictitious lustre. We are centers of tremors in a quak¬ 
ing black jelly. A bright and shining delusion looks like 
beaconed security. 

Sir Robert Ball, in the Story of the Heavens, says that the 
period in which Algol blinks his magnitudes is 2 days, 20 hours, 
48 minutes, and 55 seconds. He gives the details of Prof. Vogel’s 
calculations upon a speck of light and an invisibility. It is a 
god-like command that out of the variations of light shall come 
the diameters of faint appearances and the distance and velocity 
of the unseeable—that the diameter of the point of light is 1,054,- 
000 miles, and that the diameter of the imperceptibility is 825,000 
miles, and that their centers are 3,220,000 miles apart: orbital 
velocity of Algol, 26 miles a second, and the orbital velocity 
of the companion, 55 miles a second—should be stated 26.3 miles 
and 55.4 miles a second (Proctor, Old and New Astronomy, p. 
773). 


32 


NEW LANDS 


We come to a classic imposition like this, and at first we feel 
helpless. We are told that this thing is so. It is as if we were 
modes of motion and must go on, but are obstructed by an ab¬ 
solute bar of ultimate steel, shining, in our way, with an infinite 
polish. 

But all appearances are illusions. 

No one with a microscope doubts this; no one who has gone 
specially from ordinary beliefs into minuter examination of any 
subject doubts this, as to his own specific experience—so then, 
broadly, that all appearances are illusions, and that, by this 
recognition, we shall dissipate resistances, monsters, dragons, op¬ 
pressors that we shall meet in our pilgrimage. This bar-like cal¬ 
culation is itself a mode of motion. The static can not absolutely 
resist the dynamic, because in the act of resisting it becomes itself 
proportionately the dynamic. We learn that modifications rusted 
into the steel of our opposition. The period of Algol, which Vogel 
carried out to a minute’s 55th second, was, after all, so incom¬ 
petently determined that the whole imposition was nullified— 

Astronomical Journal, 11-113: 

That, according to Chandler, Algol and his companion do not 
revolve around each other merely, but revolve together around 
some second imperceptibility—regularly. 

Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, Oct., 1910: 

That M. Mora has shown that, in Algol’s variations there were 
irregularities that neither Vogel nor Chandler had accounted for. 

The Companion of Sirius looms up to our recognition that the 
story must be nonsense, or worse than nonsense—or that two light 
comedies will now disappear behind something darker. The story 
of the Companion of Sirius is that Prof. Auwers, having observed, 
or in his mania for a pencil and something to scribble upon, hav¬ 
ing supposed he had observed, motions of the star Sirius, had de¬ 
duced the existence of a companion, and had inevitably calculated 
its orbit. Early in the year 1862, Alvan Clark, Jr., turned his 
new telescope upon Sirius, and there, precisely where, according 
to Auwers’ calculations, it should be, saw the companion. The 
story is told by Proctor, writing thirty years later: the finding of 
the companion, in the “precise position of the calculations”; 


NEW LANDS 


33. 


Proctor's statement that, in the thirty years following, the compan¬ 
ion had “conformed fairly well with the calculated orbit.’' 

According to the Annual Record of Science and Industry, 
1876-18, the companion, in half the time mentioned by Proctor, 
had not moved in the calculated orbit. In the Astronomical Reg¬ 
ister, 15-186, there are two diagrams by Flammarion: one is the 
orbit of the companion, as computed by Auwers; the other is 
the orbit, according to a mean of many observations. They do 
not conform fairly well. They do not conform at all. 

I am now temporarily accepting that Flammarion and the other 
observing astronomers are right, and that the writers like Proctor, 
who do not say that they made observations of their own, are 
wrong, though I have data for thinking that there is no such 
companion-star. When Clark turned his telescope upon Sirius, 
the companion was found exactly where Auwers said it would be 
found. According to Flammarion and other astronomers, had he 
looked earlier or later it would not have been in this position. 
Then, in the name of the one calculus that astronomers seem never 
to have heard of, by what circumstances could that star have been 
precisely where it should be, when looked for, Jan. 31, 1862, if, 
upon all other occasions, it would not be where it should be ? 

Astronomical Register, 1-94: 

A representation of Sirius—but with six small stars around 
him—an account, by Dr. Dawes, of observations, by Goldschmidt, 
upon the “companion” and five other small stars near Sirius. Dr. 
Dawes’ accusation, or opinion, is that it scarcely seems possible 
that some of these other stars were not seen by Clark. If Alvan 
Clark saw six stars, at various distances from Sirius, and picked 
out the one that was at the required distance, as if that were the 
only one, he dignifies our serials with a touch of something other 
than comedy. For Goldschmidt’s own announcement, see Monthly 
Notices, R. A. S., 23-181, 243. 


CHAPTER FIVE 


S MUGNESS and falseness and sequences of re-adjusting fatal¬ 
ities—and yet so great is the hypnotic power of astronomic sci¬ 
ence that it can outlive its “mortal” blows by the simple process of 
forgetting them, and, in general, simply by denying that it can 
make mistakes. Upon page 245, Old and New Astronomy, 
Richard Proctor says—“The ideas of astronomers in these ques¬ 
tions of distance have not changed, and, in the present position of 
astronomy, based (in such respects) on absolute demonstration, 
they can not change.” 

Sounds that have roared in the sky, and their vibrations have 
shaken down villages—if these be the voices of Development, 
commanding that opinions shall change, we shall learn what will 
become of the Proctors and their “absolute demonstrations.” 
Lights that have appeared in the sky—that they are gleams upon 
the armament of Marching Organization. “There can be only one 
explanation of meteors”—I think it is that they are shining spear- 
points of slayers of dogmas. I point to the sky over a little town 
in Perthshire, Scotland—there may be a new San Salvador—it 
may be a new Plymouth Rock. I point to the crater Aristarchus, 
of the moon—there, for more than a century, a lighthouse may 
have been signalling. Whether out of profound meditations, or 
farrago and bewilderment, I point, directly, or miscellaneously, 
and, if only a few of a multitude of data be accepted, unformulable 
perturbations rack an absolute sureness, and the coils of our little 
horizons relax their constrictions. 

I indicate that, in these pages, which are banners in a cosmic 
procession, I do feel a sense of responsibility, but how to maintain 
any great seriousness I do not know, because still is our subject 
astronomical “triumphs.” 

Once upon a time there was a young man, aged eighteen, whose 
name was Jeremiah Horrox. He was no astronomer. He was 
interested in astronomic subjects, but it may be that we shall agree 

34 


NEW LANDS 


35 


that a young man of eighteen, who had not been heard of by one 
astronomer of his time, was an outsider. There was a transit of 
Venus in December, 1639, but not a grown-up astronomer in the 
world expected it, because the not always great and infallible Kep¬ 
ler had predicated the next transit of Venus for the year 1761. 
According to Kepler, Venus would pass below the sun in Decem¬ 
ber, 1639. But there was another calculation: it was by the great, 
but sometimes not so great, Lansberg: that, in December, 1639, 
Venus would pass over the upper part of the sun. Jeremiah 
Horrox was an outsider. He was able to reason that, if Venus 
could not pass below the sun, and also over the upper part of the 
sun, she might take a middle course. Venus did pass over the 
middle part of the sun’s disc; and Horrox reported the occur¬ 
rence, having watched it. 

I suppose this was one of the most agreeable humiliations in 
the annals of busted inflations. One thinks sympathetically of 
the joy that went out from seventeenth-century Philistines. The 
story is told to this day by the Proctors and Balls and Newcombs: 
the way they tell this story of the boy who was able to conclude 
that something that could not occupy two extremes might be in¬ 
termediate, and thereby see something that no professional ob¬ 
server of the time saw, is a triumph of absorption: 

That the transit of Venus, in December, 1639, was observed by 
Jeremiah Horrox, “the great astronomer.” 

We shall make some discoveries as we go along, and some of 
them will be worse thought of than others, but there is a dis¬ 
covery here that may be of interest: the secret of immortality 
that there is a mortal resistance to everything; but that the thing 
that can keep on incorporating, or assimilating within itself, its 
own mortal resistances, will live forever. By its absorptions, 
the science of astronomy perpetuates its inflations, but there have 
been instances of indigestion. See the New York Herald, Sept. 
16, 1909. Here Flammarion, who probably no longer asserts 
any such thing, claims Dr. Cook’s “discovery of the north pole” 
as an “astronomical conquest.” Also there are other ways. One 
suspects that the treatment that Dr. Lescarbault received from 
Flammarion illustrates other ways. 

In the year 1859, it seems that Dr. Lescarbault was some- 


36 


NEW LANDS 


thing of an astronomer. It seems that as far back as that he may 
have known a planet when he saw one, because, in an interview, 
he convinced Leverrier that he did know a planet when he saw 
one. He had at least heard of the planet Venus, because in the 
year 1882 he published a paper upon indications that Venus has 
an atmosphere. Largely because of an observation, or an an¬ 
nouncement, of his, occurred the climax of Leverrier’s fiascos: 
prediction of an intra-Mercurial planet that did not appear when 
it “should” appear. My suspicion is that astronomers pardon¬ 
ably, but frailly, had it in for Lescarbault, and that in the year 
1891 came an occurrence that one of them made an opportunity. 
Early in the year 1891. Dr. Lescarbault announced that, upon 
the night of Jan. 11, 1891, he had seen a new star. At the next 
meeting of the French Academy, Flammarion rose, spoke briefly, 
and sat down without over-doing. He said that Lescarbault had 
“discovered” Saturn. 

If a navigator of at least thirty years’ experience should an¬ 
nounce that he had discovered an island, and if that island should 
turn out to be Bermuda, he would pair with Lescarbault—as 
Flammarion made Lescarbault appear. Even though I am a 
writer upon astronomical subjects, myself, I think that even I 
should know Saturn, if I should see him, at least in such a period 
as the year 1891, when the rings were visible. It is perhaps an 
incredible mistake. However, it will be agreeable to some of us 
to find that astronomers have committed just such almost in¬ 
credible mistakes— 

In Cosmos, n. s., 42-467, is a list of astronomers who reported 
“unknown” dark bodies that they had seen crossing the disc of 
the sun: 

La Concha .Montevideo.Nov. 5, 1789; 

Keyser . Amsterdam.Nov. 9, 1802; 

Fisher.Lisbon.May 5, 1832: 

Houzeau. Brussels .May 8, 1845. 

According to the Nautical Almanac, the planet Mercury did 
cross the disc of the sun upon these dates. 

It is either that the Flammarions do so punish those who see 










NEW LANDS 


37 


the new and the undesired, or that astronomers do “discover” 
Saturn, and do not know Mercury when they see him—and that 
Buckle overlooked something when he wrote that only the science 
of history attracts inferior minds often not fit even for clergy¬ 
men. 

Whatever we think of Flammarion, we admire his deftness. 
But we shall have an English instance of the ways in which 
Astronomy maintains itself and controls those who say that they 
see that which they “should” not see, which does seem beefy. 
One turns the not very attractive-looking pages of the English 
Mechanic, 1893, casually, perhaps, at any rate in no expectations 
of sensations—glaring at one, a sketch of such a botanico-patho- 
logic monstrosity as a musk melon with rows of bunions on it 
{English Mechanic, Oct. 20, 1893). The reader is told, by An¬ 
drew Barclay, F. R. A. S., Kilmarnock, Scotland, that this 
enormity is the planet Jupiter, according to the speculum of his 
Gregorian telescope. 

In the next issue of the English Mechanic, Capt. Noble, F. R. 
A. S., writes, gently enough, that, if he had such a telescope, he 
would dispose of the optical parts for whatever they would bring, 
and would make a chimney cowl of the tube. 

English Mechanic, 1893-2-309—the planet Mars, by Andrew 
Barclay—a dark sphere, surrounded by a thick ring of lighter 
material; attached to it, another sphere, of half its diameter—a 
sketch as gross and repellent to a conventionalist as the museum- 
freak, in whose body the head of his dangling twin is embedded, 
its dwarfed body lopping out from his side. There is a descrip¬ 
tion by Mr. Barclay, according to whom the main body is red, 
and the proturberance blue. 

Capt. Noble—“Preposterous . . . last straw that breaks the 
camel’s back!” 

Mr. Barclay comes back with some new observations upon 
Jupiter’s lumps, and then, in the rest of the volume is not heard 
from again. One reads on, interested in quieter matters, and 
gradually forgets the controversy— 

English Mechanic, August 23, 1897: 

A gallery of monstrosities: Andrew Barclay, signing himself 
“F. R. A. S.,” exhibiting: 


38 


NEW LANDS 


The planet Jupiter, six times encircled with lumps; afflicted 
Mars, with his partly embedded twin reduced in size, but still 
a distress to all properly trained observers; the planet Saturn, 
shaped like a mushroom with a ring around it. 

Capt. Noble—“Mr. Barclay is not a Fellow of the Royal As¬ 
tronomical Society, and, were the game worth the candle, might 
be restrained by injunction from so describing himself!” And 
upon page 362, of this volume of the English Mechanic, Capt 
Noble calls the whole matter “a pseudo F. R. A. S.’s crazy 
hallucinations.” 

Lists of the Fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society, from 
June, 1875 to June, 1896: 

“Barclay, Andrew, Kilmarnock, Scotland; elected Feb. 8, 1856.” 

I can not find the list for 1897 in the libraries. List for 1898— 
Andrew Barclay’s name omitted. Thou shalt not see lumps on 
Jupiter. 

Every one of Barclay’s observations has something to support it. 
All conventional representations of Jupiter show encirclements by 
strings of rotundities that we are told are cloud-forms, but, in 
the Jour. B. A. A., Dec. 1910, is published a paper by Dr. Down¬ 
ing, entitled “Is Jupiter Humpy?” suggesting that various phe¬ 
nomena upon Jupiter agree with the idea that there are protuber¬ 
ances upon the planet. A common appearance, said to be an il¬ 
lusion, is Saturn as an oblong, if not mushroom-shaped: see any 
good index for observations upon the “square-shouldered aspect” 
of Saturn. In UAstronomie, 1889-135, is a sketch of Mars, ac¬ 
cording to Fontana, in the year 1636—a sphere enclosed in a ring; 
in the center of the sphere a great protruding body, said, by Fon¬ 
tana, to have looked like a vast, black cone. 

But, whether this or that should amuse or enrage us, should 
be accepted or rejected, is not to me the crux; but Andrew 
Barclay’s own opening words are: 

That, through a conventional telescope, conventional appear¬ 
ances are seen, and that a telescope is tested by the conventionality 
of its disclosures; but that there may be new optical principles, or 
applications, that may be, to the eye and the present telescope, 
what once the conventional telescope was to the eye—in times 


NEW LANDS 


39 


when scientists refused to look at the preposterous, enraging, im¬ 
possible moons of Jupiter. 

In the English Mechanic, 33-327, is a letter from the astron¬ 
omer, A. Stanley Williams. He had written previously upon 
double stars, their colors and magnitudes. Another astronomer, 
Herbert Sadler, had pointed out some errors. Mr. Williams 
acknowledges the errors, saying that some were his own, and that 
some were from Smyth’s Cycle of Celestial Objects. In the 
English Mechanic, 33-377, Sadler says that, earnestly, he would 
advise Williams not to use the new edition of Smyth’s Cycle, be¬ 
cause, with the exception of vol. 40, Memoirs of the Royal Astro¬ 
nomical Society, “a more disgracefully inaccurate” catalog of 
double stars had never been published. “If,” says one astron¬ 
omer to the other astronomer, “you have a copy of this miserable 
production, sell it for waste paper. It is crammed with the most 
stupid errors.” 

A new character appears. He is George F. Chambers, F. R. 
A. S., author of a long list of astronomical works, and a tract, 
entitled, Where Are You Going, Sunday? He, too, is earnest. 
In this early correspondence, nothing ulterior is apparent, and we 
suppose that it is in the cause of Truth that he is so earnest. 
Says one astronomer that the other astronomer is “evidently one 
of those self-sufficient young men, who are nothing, if not abusive.” 
But can Mr. Sadler have so soon forgotten what was done to him, 
on a former occasion, after he had slandered Admiral Smyth? 
Chambers challenges Sadler to publish a list of, say fifty “stupid 
errors” in the book. He quotes the opinion of the Astronomer 
Royal: that the book was a work of “sterling merit.” “Airy vs. 
Sadler,” he says: “which is it to be?” 

We began not very promisingly. Few excitements seemed to 
lurk in such a subject as double stars, their colors and magni¬ 
tudes; but slander and abuse are livelier, and now enters curi¬ 
osity: we’d like to know what was done to Herbert Sadler. 

Late in the year 1876, Herbert Sadler was elected a Fellow 
of the Royal Astronomical Society. In Monthly Notices, R. A. S., 
Jan., 1879, appears his first paper that was read to the Society: 
Notes on the late Admiral Smyth’s Cycle of Celestial Objects, 


40 


NEW LANDS 


volume second, known as the Bedford Catalogue. With no espe¬ 
cial vehemence, at least according to our own standards of repres¬ 
sion, Sadler expresses himself upon some “extraordinary mis¬ 
takes” in this work. 

At the meeting of the Society, May 9, 1879, there was an at¬ 
tack upon Sadler, and it was led by Chambers, or conducted by 
Chambers, who cried out that Sadler had slandered a great as¬ 
tronomer, and demanded that Sadler should resign. In the re¬ 
port of this meeting, published in the Observatory, there is not a 
trace of anybody’s endeavors to find out whether there were errors 
in this book or not: Chambers ignored everything but his accusa¬ 
tion of slander, and demanded again that Sadler should resign. 
In Monthly Notices, 39-389, the Council of the Society published 
regrets that it had permitted publication of Sadler’s paper, “which 
was entirely unsupported by the citation of instances upon which 
his judgment was founded.” 

We find that it was Mr. Chambers who had revised and pub¬ 
lished the new edition of Smyth’s Cycle. 

In the English Mechanic, Chambers challenged Sadler to pub¬ 
lish, say, fifty “stupid errors.” See page 451, vol. 33, English 
Mechanic —Sadler lists just fifty “stupid errors.” He says that he 
could have listed, not 50, but 250, not trivial, but of the “grossest 
kind.” He says that in one set of 167 observations, 117 were 
wrong. 

The English Mechanic drops out of this comedy with the obvi¬ 
ous title, but developments go on. Evidently withdrawing its 
“regrets,” the Council permitted publication of a criticism of 
Chambers’ edition of Smyth’s Cycle, in Monthly Notices, 40-497, 
and the language in this criticism, by S. W. Burnham, was no 
less interpretable as slanderous than was Sadler’s: that Smyth’s 
data were “either roughly approximate or grossly incorrect, and 
so constantly recurring that it was impossible to explain that 
they were ordinary errors of observation.” Burnham lists 30 
pages of errors. 

Following is a paper by E. B. Knobel, who published 17 pages 
of instances in which, in his opinion, Mr. Burnham had been too 
severe. Knowing of no objection by Burnham to this reduction, 
we have left 13 pages of errors in one standard astronomical 


NEW LANDS 


41 


work, which may fairly be considered as representative of as¬ 
tronomical work in g.neral, inasmuch as it was, in the opinion of 
the Astronomer Roya , a book of “sterling merit.” 

I think that now /e have accomplished something. After this 
we should all get along more familiarly and agreeably together. 
Thirteen pages of errors in one standard astronomical work are 
reassuring; there is a likeable fallibility here that should make 
for better relations. If the astronomers were what they think 
they are, we might as well make squeaks of disapproval against 
Alpine summits. As to astronomers who calculate positions of 
planets—of whom he was one—Newcomb, in Reminiscences of an 
Astronomer, says—“The men who have done it are therefore, in 
intellect, the select few of the human race—an aristocracy above 
all others in the scale of being.” We could never get along com¬ 
fortably with such awful selectness as that. We are grateful to 
Mr. Sadler, in the cause of more comfortable relations. 


CHAPTER SIX 


T7NGLISH MECHANIC , 56-184: 

J—J That, upon April 25, 1892, Archdeacon Nouri climbed 
Mt. Ararat. It was his hope that he should find something of 
archaeologic compensation for his clamberings. He found Noah’s 
Ark. 

About the same time, Dr. Holden, Director of the Lick Ob¬ 
servatory, was watching one of the polished and mysterious-look¬ 
ing instruments that, in the new ikonology, have replaced the 
images of saints. Dr. Holden was waiting for the appointed mo¬ 
ment of the explosion of a large quantity of dynamite in San 
Francisco Bay. The moment came. The polished little “saint” 
revealed to the faithful scientist. He wrote an account of the 
record, and sent copies to the San Francisco newspapers. Then 
he learned that the dynamite had not been fired off. He sent 
a second messenger after the first messenger, and, because mes¬ 
sengers sometimes have velocities proportional to urgencies—“the 
Observatory escaped ridicule by a narrow margin.” See the Ob¬ 
servatory, 20-467. This revelation came from Prof. Colton, who, 
though probably faithful to all the “saints,” did not like Dr. 
Holden. 

The system that Archdeacon Nouri represented lost its power 
because its claims exceeded all conceivableness, and because, in 
other respects, of its inertness to the obvious. The system that 
Dr. Holden represented is not different: there is the same seeing 
of whatever may be desirable, and the same profound meditations 
upon the remote, with the same inattention to fairly acceptable 
starting-points. The astronomers like to tell audiences of just 
what gases are burning in an unimaginably remote star, but have 
never reasonably made acceptable, for instance, that this earth is 
round, to start with. Of course I do not mean to say that this, 
or anything else, can be positively proved, but it is depressing to 

42 


NEW LANDS 


43 


hear it saM, so authoritatively, that the round shadow of this 
earth upon the moon proves that this earth is round, whereas 
records of angular shadows are common, and whereas, if this 
earth were a cube, its straight sides would cast a rounded shadow 
upon the convex moon. That the first part of a receding vessel 
to disappear should be the lower part may be only such an illu¬ 
sion of perspective as that by which railroad tracks seem to dip 
toward each other in the distance. Meteors sometimes appear 
over one part of the horizon and then seem to curve down behind 
the opposite part of the horizon, whereas they describe no such 
curve, because to a string of observers each observer is at the 
center of the seeming curve. 

Once upon a time—about the year 1870—occurred an unusual 
sporting event. John Hampden, who was noted for his piety 
and his bad language, whose avowed purpose was to support the 
principles of this earth’s earliest geodesist, offered to bet five hun¬ 
dred pounds that he could prove the flatness of this earth. Some¬ 
where in England is the Bedford Canal, and along a part of it 
is a straight, unimpeded view, six miles in length. Orthodox 
doctrine—or the doctrine of the newer orthodoxy, because John 
Hampden considered that he was orthodox—is that the earth’s 
curvature is expressible in the formula of 8 inches for the first 
mile, and then the square of the distance times 8 inches. For 
two miles, then, the square of 2, or 4, times 8. An object six 
miles away should be depressed 288 inches, or, allowing for re¬ 
fraction, according to Proctor (Old and New Astronomy) 216 
inches. Hampden said that an object six miles away, upon this 
part of the Bedford Canal, was not depressed as it “should” be. 
Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace took up the bet. Mr. Walsh, Editor 
of the Field, was the stakeholder. A procession went to the Bed¬ 
ford Canal. Objects were looked at through telescopes, or looked 
for, and the decision was that Hampden had lost. There was 
rejoicing in the fold of the chosen, though Hampden, in one of 
his most furious bombardments of verses from the Bible, charged 
conspiracy and malfeasance and confiscation, and what else I don’t 
know, piously and intemperately declaring that he had been de¬ 
frauded. 

In the English Mechanic , 80-40, some one writes to find out 


44 


NEW LANDS 


about the “Bedford Canal Experiment.” We learn that the ex¬ 
periment had been made again. The correspondent writes that, 
if there were basis to the rumors that he had heard, there must 
be something wrong with established doctrine. Upon page 138, 
Lady Blount answers—that, upon May 11, 1904, she had gone to 
the Bedford Canal, accompanied by Mr. E. Clifton, a well-known 
photographer, who was himself uninfluenced by her motives, 
which were the familiar ones of attempting to restore the old 
gentleman who first took up the study of geodesy. However she 
seethes with neither piety nor profanity. She says that, with his 
telescopic camera, Mr. Clifton had photographed a sheet, six miles 
away, though by conventional theory the sheet should have been 
invisible. In a later number of the English Mechanic, a repro¬ 
duction of this photograph is published. According to this evi¬ 
dence this earth is flat, or is a sphere enormously greater than is 
generally supposed. But at the 1901 meeting of the British As¬ 
sociation for the Advancement of Science, Mr. H. Yule Oldham 
read a paper upon his investigations at the Bedford Canal. He, 
too, showed photographs. In his photographs, everything that 
should have been invisible was invisible. 

I accept that anybody who is convinced that still are there 
relics upon Mt. Ararat, has only to climb Mt. Ararat, and he must 
find something that can be said to be part of Noah’s Ark, petri¬ 
fied perhaps. If someone else should be convinced that a mis¬ 
take has been made, and that the mountain is really Pike’s Peak, 
he has only to climb Pike’s Peak and prove that the most virtu¬ 
ous of all lands was once the Holy Land. The meaning that I 
read in the whole subject is that, in this Dark Age that we’re 
living in, not even such rudimentary matters as the shape of 
this earth have ever been investigated except now and then to 
support somebody’s theory, because astronomers have instinctively 
preferred the remote and the not so easily understandable and 
the safe from external inquiry. In Earth Features and Their 
Meaning, Prof. Hobbs says that this earth is top-shaped, quite as 
the sloping extremities of Africa and South America suggest. 
According to Prof. Hobbs, observations upon the pendulum sug¬ 
gest that this earth is shaped like a top. Some years ago, Dr. 
Gregory read a paper at a meeting of the Royal Geographical So- 


NEW LANDS 


45 


ciety, giving data to support the theory of a top-shaped earth. In 
the records of the Society, one may read a report of the discus¬ 
sion that followed. There was no ridiculing. The President of 
the Society closed the discussion with virtual endorsement, recall¬ 
ing that it was Christopher Columbus who first said that this 
earth is top-shaped. For other expressions of this revolt against 
ancient dogmas, see Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, 17-315; 18-143; 
Pop. Sci. News, 31-234; Eng. Mec., 77-159; Sci. Amer., 1 GO- 
441. 

As to supposed motions of this earth, axial and orbital, cir¬ 
cumstances are the same, despite the popular supposition that the 
existence of these motions has been established by syntheses of 
data and by unanswerable logic. All scientists, philosophers, re¬ 
ligionists, are today looking back, wondering what could have 
been the matter with their predecessors to permit them to believe 
what they did believe. Granted that there will be posterity, we 
shall be predecessors. Then what is it that is conventionally 
taught today that will in the future seem as imbecilic as to all 
present orthodoxies seem the vaporings of preceding systems? 

Well, for instance, that it is this earth that moves, though the 
sun seems to, by the same illusion by which to passengers on a 
boat, the shore seems to move, though it is the boat that is moving. 

Apply this reasoning to the moon. The moon seems to move 
around the earth—but to passengers on a boat, the shore seems 
to move, whereas it is the boat that is moving—therefore the 
moon does not move. 

As to the motions of the planets and stars that co-ordinate with 
the idea of a moving earth—they co-ordinate equally well with 
the idea of a stationary earth. 

In the system that was conceived by Copernicus I find nothing 
that can be said to resemble foundation: nothing but the appeal 
of greater simplicity. An earth that rotates and revolves is 
simpler to conceive of than is a stationary earth with a rigid 
composition of stars, swinging around it, stars kept apart by 
some unknown substance, or inter-repulsion. But all those who 
think that simplification is a standard to judge by are referred 
to Herbert Spencer’s compilations of data indicating that ad¬ 
vancing knowledge complicates, making, then, complexity, and 


46 


NEW LANDS 


not simplicity, the standard by which to judge the more advanced. 
My own acceptance is that there are fluxes one way and then 
the other way: that the Ptolemaic system was complex and was 
simplified; that, out of what was once a clarification, new compli¬ 
cations have arisen, and that again will come flux toward simpli¬ 
fication or clarification—that the simplification by Copernicus 
has now developed into an incubus of unintelligibilities revolving 
around a farrago of inconsistencies, to which the complexities 
of Ptolemy are clear geometry: miracles, incredibilities, puerilities; 
tottering deductions depending upon flimsy agreements; brutalized 
observations that are slaves to infatuated principles— 

And one clear call that is heard above the rumble of re¬ 
adjusting collapses—the call for a Neo-astronomy—it may not 
be our Neo-astronomy. 

Prof. Young, for instance, in his Manual of Astronomy, says 
that there are no common, obvious proofs that the earth moves 
around the sun, but that there are three abstrusities, all of modem 
determination. Then, if Copernicus founded the present system, 
he founded upon nothing. He had nothing to base upon. He 
either never heard of, or could not detect one of these abstrusities. 
All his logic is represented in his reasoning upon this earth’s ro¬ 
tundity: that this earth is round, because of a general tendency to 
sphericity, manifesting, for instance, in fruits and in drops of 
water—showing that he must have been unaware not only of ab¬ 
strusities, but of icicles and bananas and oysters. It is not 
that I am snobbishly deriding the humble and more than ques¬ 
tionable ancestry of modem astronomy. I am pointing out that 
a doctrine came into existence with nothing for a foundation: not 
a datum, not one observation to found upon; no astronomical 
principles, no mechanical principles to justify it. Our inquiry 
will be as to how, in the annals of false architecture, it could ever 
be said that—except miraculously, of course—a foundation was 
subsequently slipped under this baseless structure, dug under, 
rammed under, or God knows how devised and fashioned. 


CHAPTER SEVEN 


T HE three abstrusities: 

The aberration of light, the annual parallax of the stars, 
the regular, annual shift of the lines of the stellar spectra. 

By the aberration of light is meant a displacement of all stars, 
during a year’s observation, by which stars near the pole of the 
ecliptic describe circles, stars nearer the ecliptic describe ellipses, 
and the stars of the ecliptic, only little straight lines. It is sup¬ 
posed that light has velocity, and that these forms represent 
the ratio between the velocity of light and the supposed velocity 
of this earth in its orbit. In the year, 1725, Bradley conceived 
of the present orthodox explanation of the aberration-forms of 
the stars: that they reflect or represent the path that this earth 
traverses around the sun, as it would look from the stars, ap¬ 
pearing virtually circular from stars in the pole of the ecliptic, 
for instance. In Bradley’s day there were no definite delusions 
as to the traversing by this earth of another path in space, as 
part of a whole moving system, so Bradley felt simple and satis¬ 
fied. About a century later by scone of the most amusing reason¬ 
ing that one could be entertained with, astronomers decided that 
the whole supposed solar system is moving, at a rate of about 
13 miles a second from the region of Sirius to a point near Vega, 
all this occurring in northern skies, because southern astronomers 
had not very much to say at that time. Now, then, if at one time 
in the year, and in one part of its orbit, this earth is moving in 
the direction in which the whole solar system is moving, there we 
have this earth traversing a distance that is the sum of its own 
motion and the general motion; then when the earth rounds about 
and retraces, there we have its own velocity minus the general 
velocity. The first abstrusity, then, is knocked flat on its techni¬ 
calities, because the aberration-forms, then, do not reflect the 
annual motion of this earth: if, in conventional terms, though 
the path of this earth is circular or elliptic relatively to the sun, 

47 


48 


NEW LANDS 


when compounding with solar motion it is not so formed relatively 
to stars; and there will have to be another explanation for the 
aberration-forms. 

The second supposed proof that this earth moves around the 
sun is in the parallax of the stars. In conventional terms, it is 
said that opposite points in this earth’s orbit are 185,000,000 
miles apart. It is said that stars, so differently viewed, are 
minutely displaced against their backgrounds. Again solar- 
motion—if, in conventional terms, this earth has been traveling, as 
part of the solar system, from Sirius, toward Vega, in 2,000 years 
this earth has traveled 819,936,000,000 miles. This distance is 
4,500 times the distance that is the base line for orbital parallax. 
Then displacement of the stars by solar-motion parallax in 2,000 
years, should be 4,500 times the displacement by orbital parallax, 
in one year. Give to orbital parallax as minute a quantity as 
is consistent with the claims made for it, and 4,500 times that 
would dent the Great Dipper and nick the Sickle of Leo, and per¬ 
haps make the Dragon look like a dragon. But not a star in 
the heavens has changed more than doubtfully since the stars 
were cataloged by Hipparchus, 2,000 years ago. If, then, there 
be minute displacements of stars that are attributed to orbital 
parallax, they will have to be explained in some other way, if 
evidently the sun does not move from Sirius toward Vega, and 
if then, quite as reasonably, this earth may not move. 

Prof. Young’s third “proof” is spectroscopic. 

To what degree can spectroscopy in astronomy be relied upon ? 

Bryant, A History of Astronomy, p. 206: 

That, according to Belopolsky, Venus rotates in about 24 hours, 
as determined by the spectroscope; that, according to Dr. Slipher, 
Venus rotates in about 224 days, as determined by the spectro¬ 
scope. 

According to observations too numerous to make it necessary 
to cite any, the seeming motions of stars, occulted by the moon, 
show that the moon has atmosphere. According to the spectro¬ 
scope, there is no atmosphere upon the moon (Pubs. Astro. Soc. 
Pacific, vol. 6, no. 37). 

The ring of light around Venus, during the transits of 1874 and 
1882, indicated that Venus has atmosphere. Most astronomers 


NEW LANDS 


49 


say that Venus has an atmosphere of extreme density, obscuring 
the features of the planet. According to spectrum analysis, by 
Sir William Huggins, Venus has no atmosphere ( Eng . Mec., 
4-22). 

In the English Mechanic, 89-439, are published results of 
spectroscopic examinations of Mars, by Director Campbell, of 
the Lick Observatory: that there is no oxygen, and that there is 
no water vapor on Mars. In Monthly Notices, R. A. S., 27-178, 
are published results of spectroscopic examinations of Mars by 
Huggins: abundance of oxygen; same vapors as the vapors of this 
earth. 

These are the amusements of our Pilgrim’s Progress, which has 
new San Salvadors for its goals, or new Plymouth Rocks for its 
expectations—but the experiences of pilgrims have variety— 

In 1895, at the Allegheny Observatory, Prof. Keeler undertook 
to determine the rotation-period of Saturn’s rings, by spectroscopy. 
It is gravitational gospel that particles upon the outside of the 
rings move at the rate of 10.69 miles a second; particles upon the 
inner edge, 13.01 miles a second. Prof. Keeler’s determinations 
were what Sir Robert Ball calls “brilliant confirmation of the 
mathematical deduction.” Prof. Keeler announced that accord¬ 
ing to the spectroscope, the outside particles of the rings of Saturn 
move at the rate of 10.1 miles a second, and that the inner par¬ 
ticles move at the rate of 12.4 miles a second—“as they ought to,” 
says Prof. Young, in his gospel, Elements of Astronomy. 

One reads of a miracle like this, the carrying out into decimals 
of different speeds of different particles in parts of a point of 
light, the parts of which can not be seen at all without a tele¬ 
scope, whereby they seem to constitute a solid and motionless 
structure, and one admires, or one worships, according to one’s 
inexperience— 

Or there comes upon one a sense of imposture and imposition 
that is not very bearable. Imposition or imposture or captivation 
—and it’s as if we’ve been trapped and have been put into a 
revolving cage, some of the bars revolving at unthinkable speed, 
and other bars of it going around still faster, even though not 
conceivable. Disbelieve as we will, deride and accuse, and think 
of all the other false demonstrations that we have encountered, 


50 


NEW LANDS 


as we will—there’s the buzz of the bars that encircle us. The con¬ 
coction that has caged us is one of the most brilliant harlots in 
modern prostitution: we’re imprisoned at the pleasure of a 
favorite in the harem of the God of Gravitation. That’s some 
relief: language always is—but how are we to “determine” that 
the rings of Saturn do not move as they “ought” to, and thereby 
add more to the discrediting of spectroscopy in astronomy? 

A gleam on a planet that’s like shine on a sword to deliver us— 

The White Spot of Saturn— 

A bright and shining deliverer. 

There’s a gleam that will shatter concoctions and stop veloci¬ 
ties. There’s a shining thing on the planet Saturn, and the 
blow that it shines is lightning. Thus far has gone a revolution 
of 10.1 miles a second, but it stops by magic against magic; no 
farther buzzes a revolution of 12.4 miles a second—that the rings 
of Saturn may not move as, to flatter one little god they “ought” 
to, because, by the handiwork of Universality, they may be motion¬ 
less. 

Often has a white spot been seen upon the rings of Saturn: by 
Schmidt, Bond, Secchi, Schroeter, Harding, Schwabe, De Vico—a 
host of other astronomers. 

It is stationary. 

In the English Mechanic, 49-195, Thomas Gwyn Eiger pub¬ 
lishes a sketch of it as he saw it upon the nights of April 18 
and 20, 1889. It occupied a position partly upon one ring and 
partly upon the other, showing no distortion. Let Prof. Keeler 
straddle two concentric merry-go-rounds, whirling at different 
velocities: there will be distortion. See vol. 49, English Mechanic, 
for observation after observation by astronomers upon this ap¬ 
pearance, when seen for several months in the year 1889, the 
observers agreeing that, no matter what are the demands of 
theory, this fixed spot did indicate that the rings of Saturn do not 
move. 

The White Spot on Saturn has blasted minor magic. He has 
little, black retainers who now function in the cause of com¬ 
pleteness—the little, black spots of Saturn— 

Nature, 53-109: 

That, in July and August, 1895, Prof. Mascari, of the Catania 


NEW LANDS 


51 


Observatory, had seen dark spots upon the crepe ring of Saturn. 
The writer in Nature says that such duration is not easy to ex¬ 
plain, if the rings of Saturn be formations of moving particles, 
because different parts of the discolored areas would have dif¬ 
ferent velocities, so that soon would they distort and diffuse. 

Certainly enough, relatively to my purpose, which is to find 
out for myself, and to find out with anybody else who may be 
equally impressed with a necessity, a brilliant, criminal thing has 
been slain by a gleam of higher intensity. Certainly enough, then, 
with the execution of one of its foremost exponents, the whole sub¬ 
ject of spectroscopy in astronomy has been cast into rout and dis¬ 
grace, of course only to ourselves, and not in the view of manu¬ 
facturers of spectroscopes, for instance; but a phantom thing dies 
a phantom death, and must be slain over and over again. 

I should say that just what is called the spectrum of a star is 
not commonly understood. It is one of the greatest uncertainties 
in science. The spectrum of a star is a ghost in the first place, 
but this ghost has to be further attenuated by a secondary process, 
and the whole appearance trembles so with the twinkling of a 
star that the stories told by spectra are gasps of palsied phantoms. 
So it is that, in one of the greatest indefinitenesses in science, an 
astronomer reads in a bewilderment that can be made to correspond 
with any desideratum. So it is our acceptance that when any 
faint, tremulous story told by a spectrum becomes standardized, 
the conventional astronomer is told, by the spectroscope, what he 
should be told, but that when anything new appears, for which 
there is no convention, the bewilderment of the astronomers is 
made apparent, and the worthlessness of spectroscopy in astronomy 
is shown to all except those who do not want to be shown. Upon 
the first of February, 1892, Dr. Thomas D. Anderson, of Edin¬ 
burgh, discovered a new star that became known as Nova Aurigae. 
Here was something as to which there was no dogmatic “deter¬ 
mination.” Each astronomer had to see, not what he should, but 
what he could. We shall see that the astronomers might as well 
have gone, for information, to some of Mrs. Piper’s “controls” as 
to think of depending upon their own ghosts. 

In Monthly Notices, Feb., 1893, it is said that probably for 
seven weeks, up to the time of calculation, one part of this rew 


52 


NEW LANDS 


star had been receding at a rate of 230 miles a second, and an¬ 
other part approaching at a rate of 320 miles a second, giving 
to these components a distance apart of 550 miles x 60 x 60 x 24 
x 49, whatever that may be. 

But there was another seance. This time Dr. Vogel was the 
medium. The ghosts told Dr. Vogel that the new star had three 
parts, one approaching this earth at the rate of about 420 miles a 
second, another approaching at a rate of 22 miles a second, a 
third part receding at a rate of 300 miles a second. See Jour . B. 
A. A., 2-258. 

After that, the “controls” became hysterical. They flickered 
that there were six parts of this new star, according to Dr. Lowell’s 
Evolution of Worlds, p. 9. The faithful will be sorry to read 
that Lowell revolted. He says: “There is not room for so many 
on the stage of the cosmic drama.” For other reasons for re¬ 
pudiating spectroscopy, or spiritualism, in astronomy, read what 
else Lowell says upon this subject. 

Nova Aurigae became fainter. Accordingly, Prof. Klinkerfues 
“found” that two bodies had passed, and had inflamed, each other, 
and that the light of their mutual disturbances would soon dis¬ 
appear (Jour. B. A. A., 2-365). 

Nova Aurigae became brighter. Accordingly, Dr. Campbell 
“determined” that it was approaching this earth at a rate of 
128 miles a second (Jour. B. A. A., 2-504). 

Then Dr. Espin went into a trance. It was revealed to him 
that the object was a nebula (Eng. Mec., 56-61). Communica¬ 
tion from Dr. and Mrs. Huggins, to the Royal Society—not a 
nebula, but a star (Eng. Mec., 57—397). See Nature, 47—352, 
425—that, according to M. Eugen Gothard the spectrum of N. A. 
agreed “perfectly” with the spectrum of a nebula: that, according 
to Dr. Huggins, no contrast could be more striking than the dif¬ 
ference between the spectrum of N. A., and the spectrum of a 
nebula. 

For an account of the revelations at Stonyhurst Observatory, 
see Mems. R. A. S., 51-129—that there never had been a com¬ 
position of bodies moving at the rates that were so definitely an¬ 
nounced, because N. A. was a single star. 


NEW LANDS 


53 


Though I have read some of the communications from “Rector” 
and “Dr. Phinuit” to Mrs. Piper, I can not think that they ever 
mouthed sillier babble than was flickered by the star-ghosts 
to the astronomers in the year 1892. We noted Prof. Klinkerfues’ 
“finding” that two stars had passed each other, and that the illumi¬ 
nation from their mutual perturbations would soon subside. 
There was no such disappearance. For observations upon N. A., 
ten years later, see Monthly Notices, 62-65. For Prof. Barnard’s 
observations twenty years later, see Sci. Amer. Sup., 76-154. 

The spectroscope is useful in a laboratory. Spoons are use¬ 
ful in a kitchen. If any other pilgrim should come upon a group 
of engineers trying to dig a canal with spoons, his experience and 
his temptation to linger would be like ours as to the astronomers 
and their attempted application of the spectroscope. I don’t 
know what of remotest acceptability may survive in the third sup¬ 
posed proof that this earth moves around the sun, though we have 
not found it necessary to go into the technicalities of the sup¬ 
posed proof. I think we have killed the phantom thing, but I 
hope we have not quite succeeded, because we are moved more 
by the aesthetics of slaughter than by plain murderousness: we 
shall find unity in disposing of the third “proof” by the means 
by which the two others were disposed of— 

Regular Annual Shift of Spectral Lines versus Solar Motion— 
That, if this earth moves around the sun, the shift might be 
found by scientific Mrs. Pipers so to indicate— 

But that if part of the time this earth, as a part of one travel¬ 
ing system, moves at a rate of 19 plus 13 miles a second and then 
part of the time at a rate of 19 minus 13 miles a second, com¬ 
pounding with great complexities at transverse times, that is the 
end of the regular annual shift that is supposed to apply to or¬ 
bital motion. 

We need not have admitted in the first place that the three 
abstrusities are resistances: however we have a liking for revela¬ 
tions ourselves. Aberration and Parallax and Spectral Lines do 
not indicate only that this earth moves relatively to the stars: quite 
as convincingly they indicate that the stars in one composition 
gyrate relatively to a central and stationary earth, all of them 


54 


NEW LANDS 


in one concavity around this earth, some of them showing faintest 
of parallax, if this earth be not quite central to the revolving 
whole. 

Something that I did not mention before, though I referred to 
Lowell’s statements, is that astronomers now admit, or state, that 
the shift of spectral lines, which they say indicates that this earth 
moves around the sun, also indicates any one of three other cir¬ 
cumstances, or sets of circumstances. Some persons will ask why 
I didn’t say so at first, and quit the meaningless subject. May 
be it was a weakness of mine—something of a sporting instinct, 
I fear me, I have at times. I lingered, perhaps slightly intoxi¬ 
cated, with the deliciousness of Prof. Keeler and his decimals— 
like someone at a race track, determining that a horse is run¬ 
ning at a rate of 2653 feet and 4 inches a minute, by a method 
that means that no more than it means that the horse is brown, 
is making clattering sounds, or has a refreshing odor. For a 
study of a state of mind like that of many clergymen who try 
to believe in Moses, and in Darwin, too, see the works of Prof. 
Young, for instance. This astronomer teaches the conventional 
spectroscopic doctrine, and also mentions the other circumstances 
that make the doctrine meaningless. Such inconsistencies are 
phenomena of all transitions from the old to the new. 

Three giants have appeared against us. Their hearts are bub¬ 
bles. Their bones wilt. They are the limp Karyatides that up¬ 
hold the phantom structure of Palaeo-astronomy. By what mir¬ 
acle, we asked, could foundation be built subsequently under a 
baseless thing. But three ghosts can fit in anywhere. 

Sometimes astronomers cite the Foucault pendulum-experiment 
as “proof” of the motions of this earth. The circumstances of 
this demonstration are not easily made clear: consequently one 
of normal suspiciousness is likely to let it impose upon him. But 
my practical and commonplace treatment is to disregard what 
the experiment and its complexities are, and to enquire whether 
it works out or not. It does not. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 2—12— 
402; Eng. Mec., 93-293, 306; Astro. Reg., 2-265. Also we are 
told that experiments upon falling bodies have proved this earth’s 
rotation. I get so tired of demonstrating that there never has 


NEW LANDS 


55 


been any Evolution mentally, except as to ourselves, that, if I 
could, Ed be glad to say that these experiments work out beau¬ 
tifully. Maybe they do. See Proctor’s Old and New Astronomy, 
p. 229. 


CHAPTER EIGHT 


I T is supposed that astronomic subjects and principles and 
methods can not be understood by the layman. I think this, 
myself. We shall take up some of the principles of astronomy, 
with the idea of expressing that of course they can not be under¬ 
stood by the unhypnotized any more than can the stories of Noah’s 
Ark and Jonah and the Whale be understood, but that our under¬ 
standing, if we have any, will have some material for its exercises, 
just the same. The velocity of light is one of these principles. 
A great deal in the astronomic system depends upon this supposed 
velocity: determinations of distance, and amount of aberration 
depend. It will be our expression that these are ratios of im¬ 
positions to mummeries, with such clownish products that formulas 
turn into antics, and we shall have scruples against taking up the 
subject at all, because we have much hard work to do, and we 
have qualms against stopping so often to amuse ourselves. But, 
then, sometimes in a more sentimental mood, I think that the pretty 
story of the velocity of light, and its “determination,” will some 
day be of legitimate service; be rhymed some day, and told to 
children, in future kindergartens, replacing the story of little 
Bo-peep, with the tale of a planet that lost its satellites and some¬ 
times didn’t know where to find them, but that good magicians 
came along and formulated the indeterminable. 

It was found by Roemer, a seventeenth-century astronomer, that, 
at times, the moons of Jupiter did not disappear behind him, and 
did not emerge from behind him, when they “should.” He found 
that as distance between this earth and Jupiter increased, the de¬ 
lays increased. He concluded that these delays represented times 
consumed by the light of the moons in traveling greater distances. 
He found, or supposed he found, that when this earth is farthest 
from Jupiter, light from a satellite is seen 22 minutes later than 

56 


NEW LANDS 


57 


when nearest Jupiter. Given measurement of the distance be¬ 
tween opposite points in the earth’s supposed orbit, and time con¬ 
sumed in traveling this distance—there you have the velocity of 
light. 

I still say that it is a pretty story and should be rhymed; but 
we shall find that astronomers might as well try to formulate 
the gambols of the sheep of little Bo-peep, as to try to formulate 
anything depending upon the satellites of Jupiter. 

In the Annals of Philosophy, 23-29, Col. Beaufoy writes that, 
upon Dec. 7, 1823, he looked for the emergence of Jupiter’s third 
satellite, at the time set down in the National Almanac: for two 
hours he looked, and did not see the satellite emerge. In 
Monthly Notices, 44-8, an astronomer writes that, upon the night 
of Oct. 15, 1883, one of the satellites of Jupiter was forty-six 
minutes late. A paper was read at the meeting of the British 
Astronomical Association, Feb. 8, 1907, upon a satellite that was 
twenty minutes late. In Telescopic Work, p. 191, W. F. Denning 
writes that, upon the night of Sept. 12, 1889, he and two other 
astronomers could not see satellite IV at all. See the Observatory, 
9-237—satellite IV disappeared 15 minutes before calculated 
time; about a minute later it re-appeared; disappeared again; re¬ 
appeared nine minutes later. For Todd’s observations see the 
Observatory, 2-227—six times, between June 9 and July 2, 1878, 
a satellite was visible when, according to prediction, it should 
have been invisible. For some more instances of extreme vagaries 
of these satellites, see Monthly Notices, 43-427, and Jour. 
B. A. A., 14-27: observations by Noble, Turner, White, Holmes, 
Freeman, Goodacre, Ellis, and Molesworth. In periodical astro¬ 
nomical publications, there is no more easily findable material for 
heresy than such observations. We shall have other instances. 
They abound in the English Mechanic, for instance. But, in 
spite of a host of such observations, Prof. Young ( The Sun, p. 35) 
says that the time occupied by light coming from these satellites 
is doubtful by “only a fraction of a second.” It is of course 
another instance of the astronomers who know very little of 
astronomy. 

It would have been undignified, if the astronomers had taken 
the sheep of little Bo-peep for their determinations. They took 


58 


NEW LANDS 


the satellites of Jupiter. They said that the velocity of light 
is about 190,000 miles a second. 

So did the physicists. 

Our own notion is that there is no velocity of light: that one 
sees a thing, or doesn’t; that if the satellites of Jupiter behave 
differently according to proximity to this earth, that may be¬ 
cause this earth affects them, so affecting them, because the 
planets may not, as we may find, be at a thousandth part of the 
“demonstrated” distances. The notion of velocity of light finds 
support, we are told in the text books, in the velocity of sound. 
If it does, it doesn’t find support in gravitational effects, be¬ 
cause, according to the same text books, gravitational effects have 
no velocity. 

The physicists agreed with the astronomers. A beam of light 
is sent through, and is reflected back through, a revolving shut¬ 
ter—but it’s complex, and we’re simple: we shall find that there 
is no need to go into the details of this mechanism. It is not 
that a machine is supposed to register a velocity of 186,000 miles 
a second, or we’d have to be technical: it is that the eye is sup¬ 
posed to‘ perceive— 

And there is not a physicist in the world who can perceive 
when a parlor magician palms off playing-cards. Hearing, or 
feeling, or if one could smell light, some kind of a claim might 
be made—but the well-known limitations of seeing; common 
knowledge of little boys that a brand waved about in the dark can 
not be followed by the eyes. The limit of the perceptible is said 
to be ten changes a second. 

I think of the astronomers as occupying a little vortex of their 
own in the cosmic swoon in which wave all things, at least in this 
one supposed solar system. Call it swoon, or call it hypnosis— 
but that it is never absolute, and that all of us sometimes have 
awareness of our condition, and moments of wondering what it’s 
all about and why we do and think the things that sometimes 
we wake up and find ourselves doing and thinking. Upon page 
281, Old and New Astronomy, Richard Proctor awakens momen¬ 
tarily, and says: “The agreement between these results seems 
close enough, but those who know the actual difficulty of precise 
time-observations of the phenomena of Jupiter’s satellites, to say 


NEW LANDS 


59 


nothing of the present condition of the theory of their motions, 
can place very little reliance on the velocity of light deduced 
from such observations.” Upon pages 603-607, Proctor reviews 
some observations other than those that I have listed—satel¬ 
lites that have disappeared, come back, disappeared, returned 
again so bewilderingly that he wrote what we have quoted— 
observations by Gorton, Wray, Gambart, Secchi, Main, Grover, 
Smyth-Maclear-Pearson, Hodgson, Carlisle, Siminton. And that 
is the last of his awareness: Proctor then swoons back into his 
hypnosis. He then takes up the determination of the velocity of 
light by the physicists, as if they could be relied upon, accepting 
every word, writing his gospel, glorying in this miracle of science. 
I call it a tainted agreement between the physicists and the astron¬ 
omers. I prefer mild language. If by a method by which 
nothing could be found out, the astronomers determined that the 
velocity of light is about 190,000 miles a second, and if the 
physicists by another method found about the same result, what 
kind of harmony can that be other than the reekings of two con¬ 
sistent stenches? Proctor wrote that very little reliance could 
be placed upon anything depending upon Jupiter’s satellites. 
It never occurred to him to wonder by what miracle the physi¬ 
cists agreed with these unreliable calculations. It is the situa¬ 
tion that repeats in the annals of astronomy—a baseless thing that 
is supposed to have a foundation slipped under it, wedged in, or 
God knows how introduced or foisted. I prefer not to bother 
much with asking how the physicists could determine anything 
of a higher number of changes than ten per second. If be ac¬ 
cepted that the physicists are right, the question is—by what 
miracle were the astronomers right, if they had “very little” to 
rely upon? 

Determinations of planetary distances and determinations of 
the velocity of light have squirmed together: they represent either 
an agreeable picture of co-operation, or a study in mutual support 
by writhing infamies. With most emphasis I have taken the 
position that the vagaries of the Jovian satellites are so great that 
extremely little reliance can be placed upon them, but now. it 
seems to me that the emphasis should be upon the admission 
that, in addition to these factors of indeterminateness, it was, 


60 


NEW LANDS 


up to Proctor’s day, not known with anything like accuracy when 
the satellites should appear and disappear. In that case one 
wonders as to the state of the theory in Roemer’s day. It was 
in the mind of Roemer that the two “determinations” we are 
now considering first most notably satisfied affinity: mutual sup¬ 
port by velocity of light and distances in. this supposed solar 
system. Upon his Third Law, which, as we shall see later, 
he constructed upon at least three absences of anything to build 
upon, Kepler had, upon observations upon Mars, deduced 
13,000,000 miles as this earth’s distance from the sun. By the 
same method, which is the now discredited method of simultane¬ 
ous observations, Roemer determined this distance to be 
82,000,000 miles. I am not concerned with this great discrepancy 
so much as with the astronomers’ reasons for starting off distances 
in millions instead of hundreds or thousands of miles. 

In Kepler’s day the strongest objection urged against the Co- 
pernican system was that, if this earth moves around the sun, 
the stars should show annual displacements—and it is only under 
modem “refinements” that the stars do so minutely vary, perhaps. 
The answer to this objection was that the stars are vastly farther 
away than was commonly supposed. Entailed by this answer 
was the necessity of enlarging upon common suppositions gen¬ 
erally. Kepler determined or guessed, just as one pleases, and 
then Roemer outdid him. Roemer was followed by Huygens, 
with continued outdoing: 100,000,000 according to Huygens. 
Huygens took for his basis his belief that this earth is intermediate 
in size to Mars and Venus. Astronomers, to-day, say that this 
earth is not so intermediate. We see that, in the secondary phase 
of development, the early astronomers, with no means of know¬ 
ing whether the sun is a thousand or a million miles away, 
guessed or determined such distances as 82,000,000 miles and 
100,000,000 miles, to account for the changelessness of the stars. 
If the mean of these extremes is about the distance of present 
dogmas, we’d like to know by what miracle a true distance so 
averages two products of wild methods. Our expression is that 
these developments had their origin in conspiracy and prostitu¬ 
tion, if one has a fancy for such accusations; or, if everybody 
else has been so agreeable, we think more amiably, ourselves, that 


NEW LANDS 


61 


it was all a matter of comfortably adjusting and being obliging 
all around. Our expression is that ever since the astronomers 
have seen and have calculated as they should see and should 
calculate. For instance, when this earth’s distance from the sun 
was supposed to be 95,000,000 miles, all astronomers taking 
positions of Mars, calculated a distance of 95,000,000 miles; but 
then, when the distance was cut down to about 92,000,000 miles, 
all astronomers, taking positions of Mars, calculated about a dis¬ 
tance of 92,000,000 miles. It may sound like a cynicism of mine, 
but in saying this I am quoting Richard Proctor, in one of his 
lucid suspicions (Old and New Astronomy, p. 280). 

With nothing but monotony, and with nothing that looks like 
relief for us, the data of conspiracy, or of co-operation, con¬ 
tinue. Upon worthless observations upon the transits of Venus, 
1761 and 1769, this earth’s orbit was found by Encke to be 
about 190,000,000 miles across (distance of the sun about 
95,000,000 miles). Altogether progress had been more toward 
the wild calculations of Huygens than toward the undomesticated 
calculations of Roemer. So, to agree with this change, if not 
progress, Delambre, taking worthless observations upon the satel¬ 
lites of Jupiter, cut down Roemer’s worthless determinations, and 
announced that light crosses the plane of this earth’s orbit in 
16 minutes and 32 seconds—as it ought to, Prof. Young would 
say. It was then that the agreeably tainted physicists started 
spinning and squinting, calculating “independently,” we are told, 
that Delambre was right. Everything settled—everybody com¬ 
fortable—see Chambers’ Handbook of Astronomy, published at 
this time—that the sun’s distance had been ascertained, “with 
great accuracy” to be 95,298,260 miles— 

But then occurred something that is badly, but protectively, 
explained, in most astronomical works. Foucault interfered with 
the deliciousness of those 95,298,260 miles. One may read many 
books that mention this subject, and one will always read that 
Foucault, the physicist, by an “independent” method, or by an 
“absolutely independent” method, disagreed somewhat. The “dis¬ 
agreement” is paraded so that one has an impression of pains¬ 
taking, independent scientists not utterly slavishly supporting one 
another, but at the same time keeping well over the 90,000,000 


62 


NEW LANDS 


mark, and so essentially agreeing, after all. But we find that 
there was no independence in Foucault’s “experiments. We 
come across the same old disgusting connivance, or the same 
amiable complaisance, perhaps. See Clerke’s History of Astron¬ 
omy, p. 230. We learn that astronomers, to explain oscillations 
of the sun, had decided that the sun must be, not 95,298,260 miles 
away, but about 91,000,000. To oblige them, perhaps, or inno¬ 
cently, never having heard of them, perhaps, though for ten years 
they had been announcing that a new determination was needed, 
Foucault “found” that the velocity of light is less than had been 
necessary to suppose, when the sun was supposed to be about 95,- 
000,000 miles away, and he “found” the velocity to be exactly 
what it should be, supposing the sun to be 91,000,000 miles away. 
Then it was that the astronomers announced, not that they had 
cut down the distance of the sun because of observations upon 
solar oscillations, but because they had been very much impressed 
by the “independent” observations upon the velocity of light, by 
Foucault, the physicist. This squirm occurred at the meeting of 
the Royal Astronomical Society, February, 1864. There would 
have to be more squirms. If, then, the distance across this 
earth’s orbit was “found” to be less than Delambre had supposed, 
somebody would have to find that light comes from the satellites 
of Jupiter a little slower than Delambre had “proved.” Where¬ 
upon, Glassenapp “found” that the time is 16 minutes and 40 
seconds, which is what he should, or “ought to,” find. Where¬ 
upon, there would have to be re-adjustment of Encke’s calcula¬ 
tions of distance of sun, upon worthless observations upon tran¬ 
sits of Venus. And whereupon again, Newcomb went over the 
very same observations by which Encke had compelled agreement 
with the dogmas of his day, and Newcomb calculated, as was re¬ 
quired, that the distance agreed with Foucault’s reduction. 
Whether, in the first place, Encke ever did calculate, as he said 
he did, or not, his determination was mere agreement with 
Laplace’s in the seventh book of the Mechanique Celeste. Of 
course he said that he had calculated independently, because his 
method was by triangulation, and Laplace’s was the gravita¬ 
tional. 


NEW LANDS 


63 


That the word ^worthless” does apply to observations upon 
transits of Venus: 

In Old and New Astronomy, Proctor says that the observations 
upon the transits of 1761 and 1769 were “altogether unsatisfac¬ 
tory.” One supposes that anything that is altogether unsatis¬ 
factory can’t be worth much. In the next transit, of 1874, 
various nations co-operated. The observations were so disap¬ 
pointing that the Russian, Italian, and Austrian Governments 
refused to participate in the expeditions of 1882. In Reminiscen¬ 
ces of an Astronomer, p. 181, Newcomb says that the United 
States Commission, of which he was Secretary, had, up to 1902 
never published in full its observations, and probably never 
would, because by that time all other members were either dead 
or upon the retired list. 

Method of Mars—more monotony—because of criticisms of 
the taking of parallax by simultaneous observations, Dr. David 
Gill went to the Island of Ascension, during the opposition of 
Mars of 1877, to determine alone, by the diurnal method, the 
distance of this earth from the sun, from positions of Mars. For 
particulars of Gill’s method, see, for instance, Poor’s Solar 
System, p. 86. Here Prof. Poor says that, of course, the orbital 
motion of Mars had to be allowed for, in Gill’s calculations. 
If so, then of course this earth’s orbital motion had to be allowed 
for. If Dr. Gill knew the space traversed by this earth in 
its orbit, and the curvature of its path, he knew the size and 
shape of the orbit, and consequently the distance from the sun. 
Then he took for the basis of his allowance that this earth is about 
93,000,000 miles from the sun, and calculated that this earth 
is about 93,000,000 miles from the sun. For this classic de¬ 
duction from the known to the same known, he received a gold 
medal. 

In our earlier surveys, we were concerned with the false claim 
that there can be application of celestial mechanics to celestial 
phenomena; but, as to later subjects, the method is different 
The method of all these calculations is triangulation. 

One simple question: 

To what degree can triangulation be relied upon? 


64 


NEW LANDS 


To great degree in measuring the height of a building, or in 
the little distances of a surveyor’s problems. It is clear enough 
that astronomers did not invent the telescope. They adopted the 
spectroscope from another science. Their primary mathematical 
principle of triangulation they have taken from the surveyors, to 
whom it is serviceable. The triangle is another emblem of the 
sterility of the science of astronomy. Upon the coat of arms of 
this great mule of the sciences, I would draw a prism within a 
triangle. 


CHAPTER NINE 


A CCORDING to Prof. Newcomb, for instance, the distance 
of the sun is about 380 times the distance of the moon—as 
determined by triangulation. But, upon page 22, Popular As¬ 
tronomy, Newcomb tells of another demonstration, with strik¬ 
ingly different results'—as determined by triangulation. 

A split god. 

The god Triangulation is not one undivided deity. 

The other method with strikingly different results is the method 
of Aristarchus. It cuts down the distance of the sun, from 380 
to 20 times the distance of the moon. When an observer upon 
this earth sees the moon half-illumined, the angle at the moon, 
between observer and sun, is a right angle; a third line between 
observer and sun completes a triangle. According to Aristar¬ 
chus, the tilt of the third line includes an angle of 86 degrees, 
making the sun-earth line 20 times longer than the moon-earth 
line. 

“In principle,” says Newcomb, “the method is quite correct and 
very ingenious, but it can not be applied in practice.” He 
says that Aristarchus measured wrong; that the angle between the 
moon-earth line and the earth-sun line is almost 90 degrees and 
not 86 degrees. Then he says that the method can not be applied 
because no one can determine this angle that he had said is of 
almost 90 degrees. He says something that is so incongruous 
with the inflations of astronomers that they’d sizzle if their hypno¬ 
tized readers could read and think at the same time. New¬ 
comb says that the method of Aristarchus can not be applied be¬ 
cause no astronomer can determine when the moon is half- 
illumined. 

We have had some experience. 

Does anybody who has been through what we’ve been through 
suppose that there is a Prof. Keeler in the world who would not 

6s 


66 


NEW LANDS 


declare that trigonometrically and spectroscopically and micro 
metrically he had determined the exact moment and exasperating, 
or delightful, decimal of a moment of semi-illumination of the 
moon, were it not that, according to at least as good a mathema¬ 
tician as he, determination based upon that demonstration does 
show that the sun is only 20 times as far away as the moon? 
But suppose we agree that this simple thing can not be done. 

Then instantly we think of some of the extravagant claims with 
which astronomers have stuffed supine credulities. Crawling in 
their unsightly confusion that sickens for simplification, is this 
offense to harmony: 

That astronomers can tell under which Crusade, or its dec- 
imalated moment a shine left a star, but can not tell when a shine 
reaches a line on the moon— 

Glory and triumph and selectness and inflation—or that we 
shall have renown as evangelists, spreading the homely and whole¬ 
some doctrine of humility. Hollis, in Chats on Astronomy, tells 
us that the diameter of this earth, at the equator, is 41,851,160 
feet. But blessed be the meek, we tell him. In the Observatory, 
19-118, is published the determination, by the astronomer Bren¬ 
ner, of the time of rotation of Venus, as to which other astronomers 
differ by hundreds of days. According to Brenner, the time 
is 23 hours, 57 minutes, and 7.5459 seconds. I do note that 
this especial refinement is a little too ethereal for the Editor of 
the Observatory: he hopes Brenner will pardon him, but is it 
necessary to carry out the finding to the fourth decimal of a sec¬ 
ond? However, I do not mean to say that all astronomers are 
as refined as Brenner, for instance. In the Jour. B. A. A., 1-382, 
Edwin Holmes, perhaps coarsely, expresses some views. He says 
that such “exactness” as Capt. Noble’s in writing that the diam¬ 
eter of Neptune is 38,133 miles and that of Uranus is 33,836 
miles is bringing science into contempt, because very little is 
known of these planets; that, according to Neison, these diam¬ 
eters are 27,000 miles and 28,500 miles. Macpherson, in A 
Centurys Progress in Science, quotes Prof. Serviss: that the aver¬ 
age parallax of a star, which is an ordinary astronomic quantity, 
is “about equal to the apparent distance between two pins, placed 
one inch apart, and viewed from a distance of one hundred and 


NEW LANDS 


67 


eighty miles.” Stick pins in a cushion, in New York—go to 
Saratoga and look at them—be overwhelmed with the more than 
human powers of the scientifically anointed—or ask them when 
shines half the moon. 

The moon’s surface is irregular. I do not say that anybody 
with brains enough to know when he has half a shoe polished 
should know when the sun has half the moon shined. I do say 
that if this simple thing can not be known, the crowings of as¬ 
tronomers as to enormously more difficult determinations are mere 
barnyard disturbances. 

Triangulation that, according to his little priests, straddles 
orbits and on his apex wears a star—that he’s a false Colossus; 
shrinking, at the touch of data, back from the stars, deflating be¬ 
low the sun and moon; stubbing down below the clouds of this 
earth, so that the different stories that he told to Aristarchus and 
to Newcomb are the conflicting vainglories of an earth-tied squat¬ 
ter— 

The blow that crumples a god: 

That, by triangulation, there is not an astronomer in the 
world who can tell the distance of a thing only five miles away. 

Humboldt, Cosmos, 5-138: 

Height of Mauna Loa: 18,410 feet, according to Cook; 16,611, 
according to Marchand; 13,761, according to Wilkes—according 
to triangulation. 

In the Scientific American, 119-31, a mountain climber calls 
the Editor to account for having written that Mt. Everest is 29,002 
feet high. He says that, in his experience, there is always 
an error of at least ten per cent, in calculating the height of a 
mountain, so that all that can be said is that Mt. Everest is 
between 26,100 and 31,900 feet high. In the Scientific American, 
102-183, and 319, Miss Annie Peck cites two measurements 
of a mountain in India: they differ by 4000 feet. 

The most effective way of treating this subject is to find a list 
of measurements of a mountain’s height before the mountain was 
climbed, and compare with the barometric determination, when 
the mountain was climbed. For a list of 8 measurements, by tri¬ 
angulation, of the height of Mt. St. Elias, see the Alpine Journal, 
22-150: they vary from 12,672 to 19,500 feet. D’ Abruzzi 


68 


NEW LANDS 


climbed Mt. St. Elias, Aug. 1, 1897. See a paper, in the Alpine 
Journal, 19-125. D’ Abruzzi’s barometric determination—18,092 
feet. 

Suppose that, in measuring, by triangulation, the distance of 
anything five miles away, the error is, say ten per cent. But, as 
to anything ten miles away, there is no knowing what the error 
would be. By triangulation, the moon has been “found” to be 
240,000 miles away. It may be 240 or 240,000,000 miles away. 


CHAPTER TEN 


P SEUDO heart of a phantom thing—it is Keplerism, pulsat¬ 
ing with Sir Isaac Newton’s regularizations. 

If triangulation can not be depended upon accurately to 
measure distance greater than a mile or two between objects and 
observers, the aspects of Keplerism that depend upon triangula¬ 
tion should be of no more concern to us than two pins in a 
cushion 180 miles away: nevertheless so affected by something 
like seasickness are we by the wobbling deductions of the con¬ 
ventionalists that we shall have direct treatment, or independent 
expressions, whenever we can have, or seem to have, them. 
Kepler saw a planetary system, and he felt that, if that system 
could be formulated in terms of proportionality, by discovering 
one of the relations quantitatively, all its measurements could 
be deduced. I take from Newcomb, in Popular Astronomy, that, 
in Kepler’s view, there was system in the arrangement and mo¬ 
tions of the four little traitors that sneak around Jupiter; that 
Kepler, with no suspicions of these little betrayers, reasoned that 
this central body and its accompaniments were a representa¬ 
tion, upon a small scale, of the solar system, as a whole. Kepler 
found that the cubes of mean distances of neighboring satellites 
of Jupiter, divided by the squares of their times, gave the same 
quotients. He reasoned that the same relations subsisted among 
planets, if the solar system be only an enlargement of the Jo¬ 
vian system. 

Observatory, December, 1920: “The discordances between 
theory and observation (as to the motions of Jupiter’s satellites) 
are of such magnitude that continued observations of their precise 
moments of eclipses are very much to be desired.”) In the 
Report of the Jupiter Section of the British Astronomical Society 
(Mens. B. A. A., 8-83) is a comparison between observed times 
and calculated times of these satellites. 65 observations, in the 

69 


70 


NEW LANDS 


year 1899, are listed. In one instance prediction and observation 
agree. Many differences of 3 or 4 minutes are noted, and there 
are differences of 5 or 6 minutes. 

Kepler formulated his law of proportionality between times 
and distances of Jupiter’s satellites without knowing what the 
times are. It should be noted that the observations in the year 
1899 took into consideration fluctuations that were discovered by 
Roemer, long after Kepler’s time. 

Just for the sake of having something that looks like opposi¬ 
tion, let us try to think that Kepler was miraculously right 
anyway. Then, if something that may resemble Kepler’s Third 
Law does subsist in the Jovian satellites that were known to 
Kepler, by what resemblance to logicality can that proportionality 
extend to the whole solar system, if a solar system can be sup¬ 
posed ? 

In the year 1892, a fifth satellite of Jupiter was discovered. 
Maybe it would conform to Kepler’s law, if anybody could 
find out accurately in what time the faint speck does revolve. 
The sixth and the seventh satellites of Jupiter revolve so eccentri¬ 
cally that, in line of sight, their orbits intersect. Their dis¬ 
tances are subject to very great variations; but, inasmuch as it 
might be said that their mean distances do conform to Kepler’s 
Third Law, or would, if anybody could find out what their mean 
distances are, we go on to the others. The eight and the ninth 
conform to nothing that can be asserted. If one of them goes 
around in one orbit at one time, the next time around it goes 
in some other orbit, and in some other plane. Inasmuch then 
as Kepler’s Third Law, deduced from the system of Jupiter’s 
satellites, can not be thought to extend even within that minor 
system, one’s thoughts stray into wondering what two pins in a 
cushion in Louisville, Ky., look like from somewhere up in the 
Bronx, rather than to dwell any more upon extension of any such 
pseudo-proportionality to the supposed solar system, as a whole. 

It seems that in many of Kepler’s demonstrations was this fail¬ 
ure to have grounds for a starting-point, before extending his 
reasoning. He taught the doctrine of the music of the spheres, 
and assigned bass voices to Saturn and Jupiter, then tenor to 
Mars, contralto to the female planet, and soprano, or falsetto, 


NEW LANDS 


71 


rather, to little Mercury. And that is all very well and con¬ 
sistently worked out in detail, and it does seem reasonable that, 
if ponderous,, if not lumpy, Jupiter, does sing bass, the other 
planets join in, according to sex and huskiness—however, one 
does feel dissatisfied. 

. We. have dealt with Newcomb’s account. But other conven¬ 
tionalists say that Kepler worked out his Third Law by tri¬ 
angulation upon Venus and Mercury, when at greatest elon¬ 
gation, “finding” that the relation between Mercury and Venus 
is the same as the relation between Venus and this earth. If, ac¬ 
cording to conventionalists, there was no “proof” that this earth 
moves, in Kepler’s time, Kepler started by assuming that this 
earth moves between Venus and Mars; he assumed that the dis¬ 
tance of Venus from the sun, at greatest elongation, represents 
mean distance; he assumed that observations upon Mercury in¬ 
dicated Mercury’s orbit, an orbit that to this day defies analysis. 
However, for the sake of seeming to have opposition, we shall 
try to think that Kepler’s data did give him material for the 
formulation of his law. His data were chiefly the observations 
of Tycho Brahe. But, by the very same data, Tycho had demon¬ 
strated that this earth does not move between Venus and Mars; 
that this earth is stationary. That stoutest of conventionalists, 
but at the same time seeming colleague of ours, Richard Proctor, 
says that Tycho Brahe’s system was consistent with all data. 
I have never heard of an astronomer who denies this. Then 
the heart of modern astronomy is not Keplerism, but is one di¬ 
version of data that beat for such a monstrosity as something 
like Siamese Twins, serving both Keplerism and the Tychonic 
system. I fear that some of our attempts to find opposition are 
not very successful. 

So far, this mediaeval doctrine, restricting to times and dis¬ 
tances, though for all I know the planets sing proportionately 
as well as move proportionately, has data to interpret or to mis¬ 
interpret. But, when it comes to extending Kepler’s Third Law 
to the exterior planets, I have never read of any means that Kep¬ 
ler had of determining their proportional distances. He simply 
said that Mars and Jupiter and Saturn were at distances that 
proportionalized with their times. He argued, reasonably enough, 


72 


NEW LANDS 


perhaps, that the slower-moving planets are the remoter, but that 
has nothing to do with proportional remoteness. 

This is the pseudo heart of phantom astronomy. 

To it Sir Isaac Newton gave a seeming of coherence. 

I suspect that it was not by chance that the story of an apple 
should so importantly appear in two mythologies. The story of 
Newton and the apple was first told by Voltaire. One has suspi¬ 
cions of Voltaire’s meanings. Suppose Newton did see an apple 
fall to the ground, and was so inspired, or victimized, into con¬ 
ceiving in terms of universal attraction. But had he tried to 
take a bone away from a dog, he would have had another impres¬ 
sion, and would have been quite as well justified in explaining in 
terms of universal repulsion. If, as to all inter-acting things, 
electric, biologic, psychologic, economic, sociologic, magnetic, 
chemic, as well as canine, repulsion is as much of a determinant 
as is attraction, the Law of Gravitation, which is an attempt to 
explain in terms of attraction only, is as false as would be dogmas 
upon all other subjects if couched in terms of attraction only. So 
it is that the law of gravitation has been a rule of chagrin and 
fiasco. So, perhaps accepting, or passionately believing in every 
symbol of it, a Dr. Adams calculates that the Leonids will appear 
in November, 1899—but chagrin and fiasco—the Leonids do not 
appear. The planet Neptune was not discovered mathematically, 
because, though it was in the year 1846, somewhere near the posi¬ 
tion of the formula, in the year 1836 or 1856, it would have been 
nowhere near the orbit calculated by Leverrier and Adams. Some 
time ago, against the clamor that a Trans-Uranian planet had been 
discovered mathematically, it was our suggestion that, if this be 
not a myth, let the astronomer now discover the Trans-Neptu- 
nian planet mathematically. That there is no such mathematics, 
in the face of any number of learned treatises, is far more strik¬ 
ingly betrayed by those shining little misfortunes, the satellites 
of Jupiter. Satellite after satellite of Jupiter was discovered, 
but by accident or by observation, and not once by calculation: 
never were the perturbations of the earlier known satellites made 
the material for deducing the positions of other satellites. As¬ 
tronomers have pointed to the sky, and there has been nothing; 
one of them pointed in four directions at once, and four times 


NEW LANDS 


73 


over, there was nothing; and many times when they have not 
pointed at all, there has been something. 

Apples fall to the ground, and dogs growl, if their bones are 
taken away: also flowers bloom in the spring, and a trodden worm 

turns. 

Nevertheless strong is the delusion that there is gravitational 
astronomy, and the great power of the Law of Gravitation, in pop¬ 
ular respectfulness, is that it is mathematically expressed. Ac¬ 
cording to my view, one might as well say that it is fetishly 
expressed. Descartes was as great a mathematician as Newton: 
veritably enough may it be said that he invented, or discovered, 
analytic geometry; only patriotically do Englishmen say that New¬ 
ton invented, or discovered, the infinitesimal calculus. Descartes, 
too, formulated a law of the planets and not by a symbol was 
he less bewildering and convincing to the faithful, but his law 
was not in terms of gravitation, but in terms of vorticose motion. 
In the year 1732, the French Academy awarded a prize to John 
Bernouli, for his magnificent mathematical demonstration, which 
was as unintelligible as anybody’s. Bernouli, too, formulated, 
or said he formulated, planetary inter-actions, as mathematically 
as any of his hypnotized admirers could have desired: it, too, 
was not gravitational. 

The fault that I find with a great deal of mathematics in 
astronomy is the fault that I should find in architecture, if a 
temple, or a skyscraper, were supposed to prove something. Pure 
mathematics is architecture: it has no more place in astronomy 
than has the Parthenon. It is the arbitrary: it will not spoil a 
line nor dent a surface for a datum. There is a faint uniformity 
in every chaos: in discolorations on an old wall, anybody can 
see recognizable appearances; in such a mixture a mathematician 
will see squares and circles and triangles. If he would merely 
elaborate triangles and not apply his diagrams to theories upon 
the old wall itself, his constructions would be as harmless as 
poetry. In our metaphysics, unity can not, of course, be the 
related. A mathematical expression of unity can not, except ap¬ 
proximately, apply to a planet, which is not final, but is part of 
something. 

Sir Isaac Newton lived long ago. Every thought in his mind 


74 


NEW LANDS 


was a reflection of his era. To appraise his mind at all com¬ 
prehensively, consider his works in general. For some other 
instances of his love of numbers, see, in his book upon the Proph¬ 
ecies of Daniel, his determinations upon the eleventh horn 
of Daniel’s fourth animal. If that demonstration be not very 
acceptable nowadays, some of his other works may now be ar¬ 
chaic. For all I know Jupiter may sing bass, either smoothly or 
lumpily, and for all I know there may be some formulable ratio 
between an eleventh horn of a fourth animal and some other 
quantity: I complain against the dogmas that have solidified out 
of the vaporings of such minds, but I suppose I am not very 
substantial, myself. Upon general principles, I say that we take 
no ships of the time of Newton for models for the ships of today, 
and build and transport in ways that are magnificently, or per¬ 
haps disastrously, different, but that, at any rate, are not the 
same; and that the principles of biology and chemistry and 
all the other sciences, except astronomy, are not what they were in 
Newton’s time, whether every one of them is a delusion or not. 
My complaint is that the still mediaeval science of astronomy 
holds back alone in a general appearance of advancement, even 
though there probably never has been real advancement. 

There is something else to be said upon Keplerism and New- 
tonism. It is a squirm. I fear me that our experiences have 
sophisticated us. We have noted the division in Keplerism, by 
which, like everything else that we have examined, it is as truly 
interpretable one way as it is another way. 

The squirm: 

To lose all sense of decency and value of data, but to be 
agreeable; but to be like everybody else, and intend to turn our 
agreeableness to profit; 

To agree with the astronomers that Kepler’s three laws are, 
not absolutely true, of course, but are approximations, and that 
the planets do move, as in Keplerian doctrine they are said to 
move—but then to require only one demonstration that this earth 
is one of the planets; 

To admire Newton’s Principia from the beginning to the end 
of it, having, like almost all other admirers, never even seen a 
copy of it; to accept every theorem in it, without having the 


NEW LANDS 


75 


slightest notion what any one of them means; to accept that mov¬ 
ing bodies do obey the laws of motion, and must move in one of 
the conic sections—but then to require only one demonstration 
that this earth is a moving body. 

Kepler s three laws are popularly supposed to demonstrate that 
this earth moves around the sun. This is a mistake. There is 
something wrong with everything that is popular. As was said, 
by us, before, accept that this earth is stationary, and Kepler’s 
doctrines apply equally well to a sun around which proportionately 
inter-spaced planets move in ellipses, the whole system moving 
around a central and stationary earth. All observations upon 
the motions of heavenly bodies are in accord with this interpre¬ 
tation of Kepler’s laws. Then as to nothing but a quandary, 
which means that this earth is stationary, or which means that 
this earth is not stationary, just as one pleases, Sir Isaac Newton 
selected, or pleased himself and others. Without one datum, 
without one little indication more convincing one way than the 
other, he preferred to think that this earth is one of the moving 
planets. To this degree had he the “profundity” that we read 
about. He wrote no books upon the first and second horns of 
his dilemma: he simply disregarded the dilemma. 

To anybody who may be controversially inclined, I offer sim¬ 
plification. He may feel at a disadvantage against batteries 
of integrals and bombardments of quaternions, transcendental 
functions, conics, and all the other stores of an astronomer’s 
munitions— 

Admire them. Accept that they do apply to the bodies that 
move around the sun. Require one demonstration that this earth 
is one of those bodies. For treatment of any such “demonstra¬ 
tion,” see our disquisition, or our ratiociations upon the Three 
Abstrusities, or our intolerably painful attempts to write seriously 
upon the Three Abstrusities. 

We began with three screams from an exhilarated mathemati¬ 
cian. We have had some doubtful adventures, trying hard to pre¬ 
tend that monsters, or little difficulties, did really oppose us. 
We have reached, not the heart of a system, but the crotch of 
quandary. 


CHAPTER ELEVEN 


W E have seen that some of the most brilliant inspirations of 
god-like intellects, or some of the most pestilential emana¬ 
tions from infected minds, have been attempts to account for the 
virtual changelessness of the stars. Above all other data of as¬ 
tronomy, that virtual changelessness of positions stands out as a 
crucial circumstance in my own mind. To account for con¬ 
stellations that have not changed in 2,000 years, astronomers say 
that they conceive of inconceivable distances. We shall have ex¬ 
pressions of our own upon the virtually changeless positions of 
the stars; but there will be difficulties for us if the astronomers 
ever have found that some stars move around or with other stars. 
I shall take up the story of Prof. Struve and the “Companion of 
Procyon,” with more detail, for the sake of some more light upon 
refinement, exactness, accuracy in astronomy, and for the sake 
of belittling, or for the sake of sneering, or anything else that 
anybody may choose to call it. 

Prof. Struve’s announcement of his discovery of the “Com¬ 
panion of Procyon” is published in Monthly Notices, 33-430— 
that, upon the 19th of March, 1873, Struve had discovered the 
companion of Procyon, having compared it micrometrically, hav¬ 
ing tested his observations with three determinations of position- 
angle, three measures of distance, and three additional determina¬ 
tions of position-angle, finding all in “excellent agreement.” No 
optical illusion could be possible, it is said, because another astron¬ 
omer, Lindemann, had seen the object. Technically, Struve pub¬ 
lishes a table of his observations: sidereal time, distances, posi¬ 
tion-angles; from March 19 to April 2, 1873, after which his obser¬ 
vations had to be discontinued until the following year. In 
Monthly Notices, 34-355, are published the resumed observations. 
Struve says that Auwers would not accept the discovery, unless, 
in the year that had elapsed, the “companion” had shown in¬ 
crease in position, consistent with theory. Struve writes—“This 

76 


NEW LANDS 


77 


increase nas really snown itself in the most remarkable manner.” 
Therefore, he considers it “decisively established” that the ob¬ 
ject of his observations was the object of Auwers’ calculations. 
He says that Ceraski, of Moscow, had seen the “companion,” 
“without being warned of the place where it was to be looked 
for.” 

However—see back some chapters. 

It may be said that, nevertheless, other stars have companions 
that do move as they should move. Later we shall consider this 
subject, thinking that it may be that lights have been seen to 
change position near some stars, but that never has a star re¬ 
volved around another star, as to fit palaeo-astronomic theory 
it should. I take for a basis of analogy that never has one sat 
in a park and watched a tree revolve around one, but that given 
the affliction, or the endowment, of an astronomer, illusion of 
such a revolution one may have. We sit in a park. We notice 
a tree. Wherever we get the notion, we do have the notion that 
the tree has moved. Then, farther along, we notice another tree, 
and, as an indication of our vivid imagination or something else, 
we think it is the same tree, farther along. After that we pick 
out tree after tree, farther along, and, convinced that it is the 
same tree, of course conclude that the thing is revolving around 
us. Exactness and refinement develop: we compute the elements 
of its orbit. We close our eyes and predict where the tree will 
be when next we look; and there, by the same process of selection 
and identification, it is where it “should” be. And if we have 
something of almost everybody’s mania for speed, we make that 
dam thing spin around with such velocity that we, too, reel in a 
chaos of very much unsettled botanic conventions. There is 
nothing far-fetched in this analogy, except the factor of velocity. 
Goldschmidt did announce that there were half a dozen faint 
points of light around Sirius, and it was Dawes’ suspicion that 
Clark had arbitrarily picked out one of them. It is our expres¬ 
sion that all around Sirius, at various distances from Sirius, 
faint points of light were seen, and that at first, even for the first 
sixteen years, astronomers were not thoroughly hypnotized, and 
would not pick out the especial point of light that they should 
have picked out, so that there was nothing like agreement between 


78 


NEW LANDS 


the calculated and the observed orbit. Besides the irreconcilable 
observations noted by Flammarion, see the Intel. Obs., 1-482, for 
others. Then came standardized seeing. So, in the Observatory, 
20-73 is published a set of observations, in the year 1896, upon 
the “Companion of Sirius,” placing it exactly where it should be. 
Nevertheless, under this set of observations is published another 
set, so different that the Editor asks—“Does this mean that 
there are two companions?” 

Dark Companions require a little more eliminative treat¬ 
ment. So the variable nebulae, then—and do dark nebulae revolve 
around light nebulae? For instances of variable nebulae, see 
Mems. R. A. S., 49-214; Comptes Rendus, 59-637; Monthly 
Notices, 38-104. It may be said that they are not of the Algol- 
type. Neither is Algol, we have shown. 

According to the compulsions of data, our idea is that the 
stars that seem to be fixed in position are fixed in position, so 
now “proper motion” is as irreconcilible to us as relative mo¬ 
tions. 

As to “proper motion,” the situation is this: 

The stars that were catalogued 2,000 years ago have virtually 
not changed, or, if there be refinement in modern astronomy, have 
changed no more than a little more nearly exact charting would 
account for; but, in astronomic theory, the stars are said to be 
thought of as flying apart at unthinkable velocity; so then evi¬ 
dence of changed positions of stars is welcome to astronomers. 
As to well-known constellations, it can not be said that there 
has been change; so, with several exceptions, “proper motion” is 
attributed to stars that are not well-known. 

The result is an amusing trap. Great proper motion is said 
to indicate relative nearness to this earth. Of the twenty-five 
stars of supposed greatest proper motion, all but two are faintest 
of stars; so these twenty-three are said to be nearest this earth. 
But when astronomers take the relative parallax of a star, by ref¬ 
erence to a fainter star, they agree that the fainter star, because 
fainter, is farther away. So one time faintness associates with 
nearness, and then conveniences change, and faintness associates 
with farness, and the whole subject so associates with humorous- 


NEW LANDS 


79 


ness, that if we’re going to be serious at all in these expressions 
of ours we had better pass on. 

Observatory , March, 1914: 

A group of three stars that disappeared. 

If three stars disappeared at once, they were acted upon by 
something that affected all in common. Try to think of some 
one force that would not tear the seeable into visible rags, that 
could blot out three stars, if they were trillions of miles apart. 
If they were close together that ends the explanation that only be¬ 
cause stars are trillions of miles apart have they, for at least 
2,000 years, seemed to hold the same relative positions. 

In Agnes Clerke’s System of the Stars, are cited many in¬ 
stances of stars that seem to be so closely related that it seems 
impossible to think that they are trillions, or billions, or millions 
of miles apart: such formations as “seven aligned stars appear¬ 
ing to be strung on a silvery filament.” There are loops of stars 
in a cluster in Auriga; lines and arches in Opiuchus; zig-zag 
figures in Sagittarius. As to stars that not only seem close to¬ 
gether but that are colored alike, Miss Clerke expresses her 
feeling that they are close together—“If these colors be inherent, 
it is difficult to believe that the stars distinguished by them are 
simply thrown together by perspective.” As to figures in Sagit¬ 
tarius, Fison (Recent Advances in Astronomy) cites an instance 
of 30 small stars in the form of a forked twig, with dark rifts 
parallel. According to Fison, probability is overwhelmingly 
against the three uncommon stars in the belt of Orion falling into 
a straight line, by chance distribution, considering also that be¬ 
low this line is another of five faint stars parallel. There are 
dark lanes or rifts in the Milky Way that are like branches from 
main lanes or rifts, and the rifts sometimes have well-defined 
edges. In many regions where there are dark rifts there are 
lines of stars that are roughly parallel— 

That it is not distances apart that have held the stars from 
changing relatively to one another, because there are hosts of 
indications that some stars are close together, and are, or have 
been, affected, in common, by local formative forces. 


80 


NEW LANDS 


For a detailed comparison, by J. E. Gore, of stars of today 
with stars catalogued by Al-Sufi, about 1,000 years ago, see the 
Observatory, vol. 23. The stars have not changed in position, 
but it does seem that there have been many changes in magnitude. 

Other changes— Pubs. Astro. Soc. Pacific, No. 185 (1920)— 
discovery of the seventeenth new star in one nebula (Andromeda). 
For lists of stars that have disappeared, see Monthly Notices, 8- 
16; 10-18; 11-47; Sidereal Messenger, 6-320; Jour. B. A. A., 
14-255. Nebulae that have disappeared—see Amer. Jour. 
Sci., 2-33-436; Clerke’s System of the Stars, p. 293; Nature, 
30-20. 

In the Sidereal Messenger, 5-269, Prof. Colbert writes that, 
upon August 20, 1886, an astronomer, in Chicago, saw, for 
about half an hour, a small comet-like projection from the star 
Zeta, in Cassiopeia. 

So, then, changes have been seen at the distance of the stars. 

When the new star in Perseus appeared, in February, 1901, it 
was a point of light. Something went out from it, giving it in 
six months a diameter equal to half the apparent diameter of 
the moon. The appearances looked structural. To say loosely 
that they were light-effects, something like a halo, perhaps, is 
to ignore their complexity and duration and differences. Accord¬ 
ing to Newcomb, who is occasionally quotable in our favor, these 
radiations were not mere light-rays, because they did not go out 
uniformly from the star, but moved out variously and knotted and 
curved. 

It was visible motion, at the distance of Nova Persei. 

In Monthly Notices, 58-334, Dr. Espin writes that, upon the 
night of Jan. 16, 1898, he saw something that looked like a cloud 
in Perseus. It could have been nothing in the atmosphere of 
this earth, nor anything far from the constellation, because he 
saw it again in Perseus, upon Jan. 24. He writes that, upon 
Feb. 17, Mr. Heath and Dr. Halm saw it, like a cloud, dim¬ 
ming and discoloring stars shining through it. At the meet¬ 
ing of the British Astronomical Association, Feb. 23, 1898 
(Jour. B. A. A., 8-216) Dr. Espin described this appearance and 
answered questions. “It was not a nebula, and was not like one.” 


NEW LANDS 


81 


“Whatever it was it had the peculiar property of dimming and 
blotting out stars.” 

This thing moved into Perseus and then moved away. 

Clerke, The System of the Stars, p. 295—a nebula that changed 
position abruptly, between the years 1833 and 1835, and then 
changed no more. According to Sir John Herschel, a star was 
central in this nebula, when observed in 1827, and in 1833, but, 
in August, 1835, the star was upon the eastern side of the nebula. 

That it is not distance from this earth that has kept changes of 
position of the stars from being seen, for 2,000 years, because 
occasional, abrupt changes of position have been seen at the 
distance of the stars. 

That, whether there be a shell-like, revolving composition, hold¬ 
ing the stars in position, and in which the stars are openings, 
admitting light from an existence eternal to the shell, or not, 
all stars are at about the same distance from this earth, as they 
would be, if this earth were stationary and central to such a shell, 
revolving around it— 

According to the aberration-forms of the stars. 

All stars, at the pole of the ecliptic, describe circles annually; 
stars lower down describe ellipses that reduce more and more the 
farther down they are, until at the ecliptic they describe straight 
lines yearly. 

Suppose all the stars to be openings, fixed in position relatively 
to one another, in some inter-spacing substance. Conceive of a 
gyration to the whole aggregation, and relatively to a central and 
stationary earth: then, as seen from this earth, all would de¬ 
scribe circles, near the axis, ellipses lower down, and straight lines 
at the limit of transformation. If all were at the same distance 
from this earth, or if all were points in one gyrating concave 
formation, equi-distant at all points from the central earth, all 
would have the same amplitude. All aberration-forms of the 
stars, whether of brilliant or faint stars, whether circles or ellipses 
or straight lines have the same amplitude: about 41 seconds of 
arc. 

If all stars are points of light admitted from externality, held 


82 


NEW LANDS 


fixed and apart in one shell-like composition that is opaque in 
some parts and translucent in some parts and perforated gen¬ 
erally— 

The Gegenschein— 

That we have indication that there is such a shell around our 
existence. 

The Gegenschein is a round patch of light in the sky. It 
seems to be reflected sunlight, at night, because it keeps posi¬ 
tion about opposite the sun’s. 

The crux: 

Reflected sunlight—but reflecting from what? 

That the sky is a matrix, in which the stars are openings, and 
that, upon the inner, concave surface of this celestial shell, the 
sun casts its light, even if the earth is between, no more blotted 
out in the middle by the intervening earth, than often to con¬ 
siderable degree is its light blotted out upon the moon during 
an eclipse of the moon, occupying no time in traveling the distance 
of the stars and back to this earth, because the stars are near, 
or because there is no velocity of light. 

Suppose the Gegenschein could be a reflection of sunlight 
from anything at a distance less than the distance of the stars. 
It would have parallax against its background of stars. 

Observatory, 17-47: 

“The Gegenschein has no parallax.” 

At the meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, Jan. 11, 
1878, was read a paper by W. F. Denning. It was, by its im¬ 
plications, one of the most exciting documents in history. The 
subject was: “Suspected repetitions in meteor-showers.” Mr. 
Denning listed twenty-two radiants that lasted from three to 
four months each. 

In the year 1799, Humboldt noticed that the paths of meteors, 
when parts of one display, led back to one point of common ori¬ 
gin, or one point from which all the meteors had radiated. This 
is the radiant-point, or the radiant. When a radiant occurs under 
a constellation, the meteors are named relatively. In the ex¬ 
traordinary meteoric display of November 13-14, 1833, there 
was a circumstance that was as extraordinary as the display it- 


NEW LANDS 


83 


self: that, though this earth is supposed to rotate upon its axis, 
giving to the stars the appearance of revolving nightly, and sup¬ 
posed to revolve around the sun, so affecting the seeming mo¬ 
tions of the stars, these meteors of November, 1833, began under 
the constellation Leo, and six hours later, though Leo had changed 
position in the sky, had changed with, and seemed still coming 
from, Leo. 

There was no parallax along the great base line from Canada 
to Florida. 

Then these meteors did come from Leo, or parallax, or ab- 
sense of parallax, is meaningless. 

The circumstance of precise position maintained under a mov¬ 
ing constellation upon the night of Nov. 13-14, 1833, becomes 
insignificant relatively to Denning’s data of such synchronization 
with a duration of months. When a radiant-point remains under 
Leo or Lyra, night after night, month after month, it is either 
that something is shifting it, without parallax, in exact coinci¬ 
dence with a doubly shifting constellation, which is so unthink¬ 
able that Denning says, “I can not explain,” or that the constel¬ 
lation is the radiant point, in which case maintenance of pre¬ 
cise position under it is unthinkable if it be far away— 

That the stars are near. 

Think of a ship, slowly sailing past a seacoast town, firing 
with smokeless powder, say. Shells from it burst before quite 
reaching the town, and all explosion-points are in line between 
the city and the ship, or are traceable to one such radiant. The 
bombardment continues. The ship moves slowly. Still all 
points of exploding shells are traceable to one point between the 
ship and the town. The bombardment goes on and goes on and 
goes on, and the ship is far from its first position. The point 
of exploding shells is still between the ship and the town. Wise 
men in the town say that the shells are not coming from the 
ship. They say this because formerly they had said that shells 
could not come from a ship. They reason: therefore shells 
are not coming from this ship. They are asked how, then, 
the point of explosion could so shift exactly in line with the mov¬ 
ing ship. If there be a W. F. Denning among them, he will 
say, “I can not explain.” But the other wise men will be like 


84 


NEW LANDS 


Prof. Moulton, for instance. In his books, Prof. Moulton writes 
a great deal upon the subject of meteors, but he does not men¬ 
tion the meteors that, for months at a time, appear between 
observers and a shifting constellation. 

There are other considerations. The shells are heard to ex¬ 
plode. So then they explode near the town. But there is some¬ 
thing the matter with that smokeless powder aboard ship:' very 
feeble projectile-force, because also must the shells be explod¬ 
ing near the ship, or the radiant point would not have the 
same background, as seen from different parts of the town. 
Then, in this town, inhabitants, provided they be not wise men, 
will conclude that, if the explosion-point is near the town, and 
is also near the ship, the ship is near the town— 

Leo and Lyra and Andromeda—argosies that sail the sky and 
that bombard this earth—and that they are not far away. 

And some of us there may be who, instead of trying to specu¬ 
late upon an unthinkable remoteness, will suffer a sensitiveness to 
proximity instead; enter a new revolt against a black encom- 
passment that glitters with a light beyond, and wonder what 
exists in a brilliant environment not far away—and a new an¬ 
guish for hyperaesthesia upon this earth: a suffocating conscious¬ 
ness of the pressure of the stars. 

The Sickle of Leo, from which come the Leonids, gleams like 
a great question-mark in the sky. 

The answer— 

But God knows what the answer to anything is. 

Perhaps it is that the stars are very close indeed. 


CHAPTER TWELVE 


W E try to have independent expressions. Accept that it is 
not distance that has held the stars in unchanging posi¬ 
tion, if occasional, abrupt change of position has been seen at the 
distance of the stars, and it is implied that the not enormously 
distant stars are all about equally far away from this earth, or 
some would be greatly particularized, and that this earth does 
not move in an orbit, or stars would be seasonally particularized, 
but would not be, if the stars, in one composition revolve; also 
if this earth be relatively close to all stars, if many 
changes of magnitude and of appearance and disappearance have 
been seen at the distance of the stars, and, if, in the revolutions of 
the stars, they do not swirl in displacements as bewildering as 
a blizzard of luminous snowflakes, and if no state of inter-re¬ 
pulsion can be thought of, especially as many stars merge into 
others, this composition is a substantial, concave formation, or 
shell-like enclosure in which stars are points. So many of the 
expressions in the preceding chapter imply others, or all others. 
However, we have tried to have independent expressions. Of 
course we realize that the supposed difference between inductive 
and deductive reasoning is a false demarcation; nevertheless we 
feel that deductions piled upon other deductions are only architec¬ 
ture, and a great deal in this book expresses the notion that archi¬ 
tecture should be kept in its own place. Our general expression 
is not that there should be no architecture and no mathematics in 
astronomy, or neo-astronomy; not that there should be no poetry 
in biology; no chemistry in physiology—but that “pure” archi¬ 
tecture or “pure” mathematics, biology, chemistry has its own 
field, even though each is inextricably bound up with all the 
other aspects of being. So of course the very thing that we ob¬ 
ject to in its extreme manifestations is essential to us in some 
degree, and the deductive is findable somewhere in every one of 

85 


86 


NEW LANDS 


our inductions, and we are not insensible to what we think is the 
gracefulness of some of the converging lines of our own construc¬ 
tions. We are not revolting against aspects, but against emphases 
and intrusions. 

This first part of our work is what we consider neo-astronomic; 
and now to show that we have no rabidity against the mathemat¬ 
ical except when over-emphasized, or mis-applied, our language 
is that all expressions so far developed are to us of about 50% 
acceptability. A far greater attempted independence is coming, 
a second part of this work, considering phenomena so different 
that, if we term the first part of our explorations “neo-astronomic,” 
even some other term, by which to designate the field of the 
second part, will have to be thought of, and the word “extra- 
geographic” seems best for it. If in these two fields, our at least 
temporary conclusions be the same, we shall be impressed, in 
spite of all our cynicisms as to “agreements.” 

Neo-astronomy: 

This supposed solar-system—an egg-like organism that is 
shelled away from external light and life—this central and sta¬ 
tionary earth its nucleus—around it a revolving shell, in which 
the stars are pores, or functioning channels, through some of 
which spray irradiating fountains said to be “meteoric,” but per¬ 
haps electric—in which the nebulae are translucent patches, and in 
which the many dark parts are areas of opaque, structural sub¬ 
stance—and that the stars are not trillions nor even millions of 
miles away—with proportional reductions of all internal distances, 
so that the planets are not millions, nor even hundreds of thou¬ 
sands of miles away. 

We conceive of the variability of the stars and the nebulae 
in terms of the incidence of external light upon a revolving shell, 
and fluctuating passage through light-admitting points and parts. 
We conceive of all things being rhythmic, so, if stars be pores in 
a substance, that matrix must be subject to some changes, which 
may be of different periodicities in different regions. There 
may be local vortices in the most rigid substance, and so stars, 
or pores, might revolve around one another, but our tendency is 
to think that if light companions there be to some stars, they 
are reflections of light, passing through channels, upon sur- 


NEW LANDS 


87 


rounding substance, flickering from one position to another in 
the small undulations of this environment. So there may be 
other displacements, differences of magnitude, new openings and 
closings in a substance that is not absolutely rigid. So “proper 
motion” might be accounted for, but my own preference is to 
think, as to such stars as 1830 Groombridge and Barnard’s “run¬ 
away star” that they are planets—also that some of the comets, 
especially the tailless comets, some of which have been seen to 
obscure stars, so that evidently they are not wisps of highly 
attenuated matter, are planets, all of them not conventionally 
recognized as planets, because of eccentricity and remoteness 
from the ecliptic, two departures, however, that many of the 
minor planets make to great degree. If some of these bodies 
be planets, the irregularities of some of them are consistent with 
the irregularities of Jupiter’s satellites. 

I suggest that a combination of the Ptolemaic and the Tychonic 
doctrines is in good accord with all the phenomena that we have 
considered, and with all planetary motions that we have had no 
occasion to pay much attention to—that the sun, carrying Mer¬ 
cury and Venus with him, revolves at a distance of a few thousand 
miles, or a few tens of thousands of miles, in a rising and fall¬ 
ing spiral around this virtually, but not absolutely, stationary 
earth, which, according to modern investigations is more top¬ 
shaped than spherical; moon, a few thousand miles away, re¬ 
volving around this nucleus; and the exterior planets not only 
revolving around this whole central arrangement, but approaching 
and receding, in loops, also, quite as they seem to the remotest of 
them preposterously near, according to conventional “determina¬ 
tions.” 

So all the phenomena of the skies may be explained. But all 
were explained in another way by Copernicus, in another way 
by Ptolemy, and in still another way by Tycho Brahe. One 
supposes that there are other ways. If there be a distant object, 
and, if one school of wisemen can by their reasoning proc¬ 
esses excellently demonstrate that it is a tree, another school 
positively determine that it is a house, and other investigators 
of the highest authoritativeness variously find and prove that 
it is a cloud or a buffalo or a geranium, why then, their reason- 


88 


NEW LANDS 


ing processes may be admired but not trusted. Right at the 
heart of our opposition, and right at the heart of our own expres¬ 
sions, is the fatality that there is no reasoning, no logic, no 
explanation resembling the illusions in the vainglories of common 
suppositions. There is only the process of correlating to, or 
organizing or systematizing around, something that is arbitrarily 
taken for a base, or a dominant doctrine, or a major premise—the 
process of assimilating with something else, making agreement 
with something else, or interpreting in terms of something else, 
which supposed base is never itself final, but was originally an 
assimilation with still something else. 

I typify the result of all examinations of all principles or 
laws or dominant thoughts, scientific, philosophic, or theologic, 
in what we find in examining the pronouncement that motion fol¬ 
lows the least resistance: 

That motion follows least resistance. 

How are we to identify least resistance? 

If motion follows it. 

Then motion goes where motion goes. 

If nothing can be positively distinguished from anything else 
there can be no positive logic, which is attempted positive dis- 
tinguishment. Consider the popular “base” that Capital is tyr¬ 
anny, and almost utmost wickedness, and that Labor is pure and 
idealistic. But one’s labor is one’s capital, and capital that is 
not working is in no sense implicated in this conflict. 

Nevertheless we now give up our early suspicion that our whole 
existence is a leper of the skies, quaking and cringing through 
space, having the isolation that astronomers suppose, because 
other celestial forms of being fly from infection— 

That, if shelled away from external light and life, it is so 
surrounded and so protected in the same cause and functioning 
as that of similarly encompassed forms subsidiary to it—that our 
existence is super-embryonic. 

Darkness of night and of lives and of thoughts—super-uterine 
entombment. Blackness of the unborn, quasi-illumined periodi¬ 
cally by the little sun, which is not light, but less dark. 

Then we think of an organism that needs no base, and needs 
nothing of finality, nor of special guidance to any part local to 


NEW LANDS 


89 


it, because all parts partake of the pre-determined development 
of the whole. Consequently our spleens subside, and our fre¬ 
quently unmannerly derisions are hushed by recognitions—that 
all organizations of thought must be baseless in themselves, and 
of course be not final, or they could not change, and must bear 
within themselves those elements that will, in time, destroy them 

that seeming solidities that pass away, in phantom-successions, 
are functionaries relatively to their periods, and express the pas¬ 
sage from phase to phase of all things embryonic. 

So it is that one who searches for fundamentals comes to bifur¬ 
cations) never to a base; only to a quandary. In our own field, 
let there be any acceptable finding. It indicates that the earth 
moves around the sun. Just as truly it indicates that the sun 
moves around the earth. What is it that determines which will 
be accepted, hypnotically blinding the faithful to the other as¬ 
pect? Our own expression is upon Development as serial reac¬ 
tions to successive Dominants. Let the dominant spirit of an era 
required that this earth be remote and isolated; Keplerism will 
support it: let the dominant change to a spirit of expansion, which 
would be impossible under such remoteness and isolation; Kep¬ 
lerism will support, or will not especially oppose, the new dom¬ 
inant. This is the essential process of embryonic growth, by 
which the same protoplasmic substance responds differently in 
different phases. 

But I do not think that all data are so plastic. There are 
some that will not assimilate with a prevailing doctrine. They 
can have no effect upon an arbitrary system of thought, or a 
system sub-consciously induced, in its time of dominance: they 
will simply be disregarded. 

We have reached our catalog of the sights and the sounds to 
which all that we have so far considered is merely introductory. 
For them there are either no conventional explanations or poor 
insufficiencies half-heartedly offered. Our data are glimpses of 
an epoch that is approaching with far-away explosions. It is vi¬ 
brating on its edges with the tread of distant space-armies. Al¬ 
ready it has pictured in the sky visions that signify new excite¬ 
ments, even now lapping over into the affairs of a self-disgusted, 
played-out hermitage. 


90 


NEW LANDS 


We assemble the data. Unhappily, we shall be unable to resist 
the temptation to reason and theorize. May Super-embryology 
have mercy upon our own syllogisms. We consider that we are 
entitled to at least 13 pages of gross and stupid errors. After 
that we shall have to explain. 






































\ 




% 

I 




PART II 


















































CHAPTER ONE 


J UNE, 1801—a mirage of an unknown city. It was seen, for 
more than an hour, at Youghal, Co. Cork, Ireland—a rep¬ 
resentation of mansions, surrounded by shrubbery and white 
palings forests behind. In October, 1796, a mirage of a walled 
town had been seen distinctly for half an hour at Youghal. 
Upon March 9, 1797, had been seen a mirage of a walled town. 

Feb. 7, 1802 an unknown body that was seen, by Fritsch, of 
Magdeburg, to cross the sun ( Observatory , 3-136). 

Oct. 10, 1802—an unknown dark body was seen, by Fritsch, 
rapidly crossing the sun (Comptes Rendus, 83-587). 

Between 10 and 11 o’clock, morning of Oct. 8, 1803, a stone 
fell from the sky, at the town of Apt, France. About eight 
hours later, “some persons believed that they felt an earthquake” 
(Kept. B. A., 1854-53). 

Upon August 11, 1805, an explosive sound was heard at East 
Haddam, Connecticut. There are records of six prior sounds, 
as if of explosions, that were heard at East Haddam, beginning 
with the year 1791, but, unrecorded, the sounds had attracted 
attention for a century, and had been called the “Moodus” sounds, 
by the Indians. For the best account of the “Moodus sounds, 
see the Amer. Jour. Sci., 39—339. Here a writer tries to show 
the phenomena were subterranean, but says that there was no 
satisfactory explanation. 

Upon the 2nd of April, 1808, over the town of Pignerol, 
Piedmont, Italy, a loud sound was heard: in many places in 
Piedmont an earthquake was felt. In the Rept. B. A., 1854-68, it 
is said that aerial phenomena did occur; that, before the ex¬ 
plosion, luminous objects had been seen in the sky over Pignerol, 
and that in several of the communes in the Alps aerial sounds, 
as if of innumerable stones colliding, had been heard, and that 
quakes had been felt. From April 2 to April 8, forty shocks 

93 


94 


NEW LANDS 


were recorded at Pignerol; sounds like cannonading were heard 
at Barga. Upon the 18th of April, two detonations were heard 
at La Tour, and a luminous object was seen in the sky. The 
supposition, or almost absolute belief of most persons is that 
from the 2nd to the 18th of April, this earth had moved far 
in its orbit, and was rotating so that, if one should explain that 
probably meteors had exploded here, it could not very well be 
thought that more meteors were continuing to pick out this one 
point upon a doubly moving planet. But something was specially 
related to this one local sky. Upon the 19th of April, a stone 
fell from the sky, at Borgo San Donnino, about 40 miles east 
of Piedmont ( Rept. B. A., 1860). Sounds like cannonading were 
heard almost every day in this small region. Upon the 13th of 
May, a red cloud such as marks the place of a meteoric explosion 
was seen in the sky. Throughout the rest of the year, phenomena 
that are now listed as “earthquakes” occurred in Piedmont. The 
last occurrence of which I have record was upon Jan. 22, 1810. 

Feb. 9, 1812—two explosive sounds at East Haddam ( Amer . 
Jour. Sci., 39-339). 

July 5, 1812—one explosive sound at East Haddam (Amer. 
Jour. Sci., 39-339). 

Oct. 28, 1812—“phantom soldiers” at Havarah Park, near 
Ripley, England (Edinburgh Annual Register, 1812-11-124). 
When such appearances are explained by meteorologists, they are 
said to be displays of the aurora borealis. Psychic research ex¬ 
plains variously. The physicists say that they are mirages of 
troops marching somewhere at a distance. 

Night of July 31, 1813—flashes of light in the sky of Tot¬ 
tenham, near London (Year Book of Facts, 1853-272). The sky 
was clear. The flashes were attributed to a storm at Hastings, 65 
miles away. We note not only that the planet Mars was in op¬ 
position at this time (July 30), but in one of the nearest of its 
oppositions in the 19 th century. 

Dec. 28, 1813—an explosive sound at East Haddam. 

Feb. 2, 1816—a quake at Lisbon. There was something in the 
sky. Extraordinary sounds were heard, but were attributed to 
“flocks of birds.” But six hours later something was seen in the 
sky: it is said to have been a meteor (Rept, B. A., 1854-106). 


NEW LANDS 


95 


Since the year 1788, many earthquakes, or concussions that were 
listed as earthquakes, had occurred at the town of Comrie, Perth¬ 
shire, Scotland. Seventeen instances were recorded in the year 
1795. Almost all records of the phenomena of Comrie start with 
the year 1788, but, in Macara’s Guide to Creiff, it is said that the 
disturbances were recorded as far back as the year 1597. They 
were slight shocks, and until the occurrence upon August 13, 

1816, conventional explanations, excluding all thought of relations 
with anything in the sky, seemed adequate enough. But, in an 
account in the London Times, Aug. 21, 1816, it is said that, at 
the time of the quake of Aug. 13, a luminous object, or a “small 
meteor had been seen at Dunkeld, near Comrie; and, according 
to David Milne (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-110) a resident of 
Comrie had reported “a large luminous body, bent like a crescent, 
which stretched itself over the heavens.” 

There was another quake in Scotland (Inverness) June 30, 

1817. It is said that hot water fell from the sky (Kept. B. A., 
1854-112). 

Jan. 6, 1818—an unknown body that crossed the sun, accord¬ 
ing to Loft, of Ipswich; observed about three hours and a half 
( Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst., 5-117). 

Five unknown bodies that were seen, upon June 26, 1819, 
crossing the sun, according to Gruithuisen (An. Sci. Disc., 
1860-411). Also, upon this day, Pastorff saw something that he 
thought was a comet, which was then somewhere near the sun, but 
which, according to Olbers, could not have been the comet (Webb, 
Celestial Objects, p. 40). 

Upon Aug. 28, 1819, there was a violent quake at Irkutsk, 
Siberia. There had been two shocks upon Aug. 22, 1813 ( Rept. 
B. A., 1854—101). Upon April 6, 1805, or March 25, according 
to the Russian calendar, two stones had fallen from the sky at 
Irkutsk (Rept. B. A., 1860-12). One of these stones is now in 
the South Kensington Museum, London. Another violent shock 
at Irkutsk, April 7, 1820 (Rept. B. A., 1854-128). 

Unknown bodies in the sky, in the year 1820, Feb. 12 and 
April 27 (Comptes Rendus, 83-314). 

Things that marched in the sky—see Arago’s CEuvres, 11-576, 
or Annales de Chimie, 30-417—objects that were seen by many 


96 


NEW LANDS 


persons, in the streets of Embrun, during the eclipse of Sept. 7, 
1820, moving in straight lines, turning and retracing in the same 
straight lines, all of them separated by uniform spaces. 

Early in the year 1821—and a light shone out on the moon— 
a bright point of light in the lunar crater Aristarchus, which was 
in the dark at the time. It was seen, upon the 4th and the 7th 
of February, by Capt. Kater (An. Reg., 1821-689); and upon 
the 5th by Dr. Olbers (Mems. R. A. S., 1-159). It was a light 
like a star, and was seen again, May 4th and 6th, by the Rev. M. 
Ward and by Francis Bailey (Mems. R. A. S., 1-159). At Cape 
Town, nights of Nov. 28th and 29th, 1821, again a star-like light 
was seen upon the moon (Phil. Trans., 112-237). 

Quar. Jour. Roy. Inst., 20-417: 

That, early in the morning of March 20, 1822, detonations 
were heard at Melida, an island in the Adriatic. All day, at 
intervals, the sounds were heard. They were like cannonading, 
and it was supposed that they came from a vessel, or from Turkish 
artillery, practicing in some frontier village. For thirty days the 
detonations continued, sometimes thirty or forty, sometimes sev¬ 
eral hundred, a day. 

Upon April 13, 1822, it seems, according to description, that 
clearly enough was there an explosion in the sky of Comrie, 
and a concussion of the ground—“two loud reports, one ap¬ 
parently over our heads, and the other, which followed imme¬ 
diately, under our feet” (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-119). 

July 15, 1822—the fall of perhaps unknown seeds from per¬ 
haps an unknown world—a great quantity of little round seeds 
that fell from the sky, at Marienwerder, Germany. They were 
unknown to the inhabitants, who tried to cook them, but found 
that boiling seemed to have no effect upon them. Wherever 
they came from, they were brought down by a storm, and two 
days later, more of them fell, in a storm, in Silesia. It is said 
that these corpuscles were identified by some scientists as seeds 
of Galium spurium, but that other scientists disagreed. Later 
more of them fell at Posen, Mecklenburg. See Bull, des Sci. 
(math., astro., etc.) 1-1-298. 

Aug. 19, 1822—a tremendous detonation at Melida—others 
continuing several days. 


NEW LANDS 


97 


Oct. 23, 1822—two unknown dark bodies crossing the sun; 
observed by Pastorff {An. Sci. Disc., 1860-411). 

An unknown, shining thing—it was seen, by Webb, May 22, 
1823, near the planet Venus ( Nature, 14-195). 

More unknowns, in the year 1823—see Comptes Rendus, 49- 
811 and Webb’s Celestial Objects, p. 43. 

Feb., 1824—the sounds of Melida. 

Upon Feb. 11, 1824, a slight shock was felt at Irkutsk, Siberia 
(Rept. B. A., 1854-124). Upon Feb. 18, or, according to other 
accounts, upon May 14, a stone that weighed five pounds, fell 
from the sky at Irkutsk {Rept. B. A., 1860-70). Three severe 
shocks at Irkutsk, March 8, 1824 {Rept. B. A., 1854-124). 

Sept., 1824—the sounds of Melida. 

At five o’clock, morning of Oct. 20, 1824, a light was seen upon 
the dark part of the moon, by Gruithuisen. It disappeared. 
Six minutes later it appeared again, disappeared again, and then 
flashed intermittently, until 5.30 a. m., when sunrise ended the 
observations {Sci. Amer. Sup., 7-2712). And, upon Jan. 22, 
1825, again shone out the star-like light of Aristarchus, re¬ 
ported by the Rev. J. B. Emmett {Annals of Philosophy, 28-338). 

The last sounds of Melida of which I have record, were heard 
in March, 1825. If these detonations did come from the sky, 
there was something that, for at least three years, was situated 
over, or was in some other way specially related to, this one 
small part of this earth’s surface, subversively to all supposed 
principles of astronomy and geodesy. It is said that, to find out 
whether the sounds did come from the sky, or not, the Preteur 
of Melida went into underground caverns to listen. It is said 
that there the sounds could not be heard. 


CHAPTER TWO 


A ND our own underground investigations—and whether there 
is something in the sky or not. We are in a hole in time. 
Cavern of Conventional Science—walls that are dogmas, from 
which drips ancient wisdom in a patter of slimy opinions— 
but we have heard a storm of data outside— 

Of beings that march in the sky, and of a beacon on the 
moon—another dark body crosses the sun. Somewhere near 
Melida there is cannonading, and another stone falls from the 
sky, at Irkutsk, Siberia; and unknown grain falls from an un¬ 
known world, and there are flashes in the sky when the planet 
Mars is near. 

In a farrago of lights and sounds and forms, I feel the presence 
of possible classifications that may thread a pattern of attempt to 
find out something. My attention is attracted by a streak of events 
that is beaded with little star-like points of light. First we shall 
find out what we can, as to the moon. 

In one of the numbers of the Observatory, an eminent authority, 
in some fields of research, is quoted as to the probable distance 
of the moon. According to his determinations, the moon is 37 
miles away. He explains most reasonably: he is Mr. G. B. Shaw. 
But by conventional doctrine, the moon is 240,000 miles away. 
My own idea is that somewhere between determinations by a Shaw 
and determinations by a Newcomb, we could find many accept¬ 
ances. 

I prefer questionable determinations, myself, or at any rate 
examinations that end up with questions or considerable latitude. 
It may be that as to the volcanoes of the moon we can find material 
for at least a seemingly intelligent question, if no statements are 
possible as to the size and the distance of the moon. The larger 
volcanoes of this earth are about three miles in diameter, though 
the craters of Haleakla, Hawaii, and Aso San, Japan, are seven 

98 


NEW LANDS 


99 


miles across. But the larger volcanoes of the relatively little moon 
are said to be sixty miles across, though several are said to be 
twice that size. And I start off with just about the impression of 
disproportionality that I should have, if someone should tell me 
of a pigmy with ears five feet long. 

Is there any somewhat good reason for thinking that the volcanic 
craters of the little moon are larger than, or particularly different 
in any other way from, the craters of this earth? 

If not, we have a direct unit of measurement, according to which 
the moon is not 2160, but about 100, miles in diameter. 

How far away does one suppose to be an object with something 
like that diameter, and of the seeming size of the moon? 

The astronomers explain. They argue that gravitation must be 
less powerful upon the moon than upon this earth, and that there¬ 
fore larger volcanic formations could have been cast up on the 
moon. We explain. We argue that volcanic force must be less 
powerful upon the moon than upon this earth, and that therefore 
larger volcanic formations could not have been cast up on the 
moon. 

The disproportionality that has impressed me has offended 
more conventional aesthetics than mine. Prof. See, for instance, 
has tried to explain that the lunar formations are not craters but 
are effects of bombardment by vast meteors, which spared this 
earth, for some reason not made clear. Viscid moon—meteor 
pops in—up splash walls and a central cone. If Prof. See will 
jump in swimming some day, and then go back some weeks later 
to see how big a splash he made, he will have other ideas upon 
such supposed persistences. The moon would have to have been 
virtually liquid to fit his theory, because there are no partly em¬ 
bedded, vast, round meteors protruding anywhere. 

There have been lights like signals upon the moon. There are 
two conventional explanations: reflected sunlight and volcanic ac¬ 
tion. Of course, ultra-conventionalists do not admit that in our 
own times there has been even volcanic action upon the moon. 
Our instances will be of lights upon the dark part of the moon, 
and there are good reasons for thinking that our data do not re¬ 
late to volcanic action. In volcanic eruptions upon this earth the 
glow is so accompanied by great volumes of smoke that a clear, 


100 


NEW LANDS 


definite point of light would seem not to be the appearance from 
a distance. 

For Webb’s account of a brilliant display of minute dots and 
streaks of light, in the Mare Crisium, July 4, 1832, see Astro. 
Reg., 20-165. I have records of half a dozen similar illumina¬ 
tions here, in about 120 years, all of them when the Mare Crisium 
was in darkness. There can be no commonplace explanation for 
such spectacles, or they would have occurred oftener; nevertheless 
the Mare Crisium is a wide, open region, and at times there may 
have been uncommon percolations of sunlight, and I shall list 
no more of these interesting events that seem to me to have been 
like carnivals upon the moon. 

Dec. 22, 1835—the star-like light in Aristarchus—reported by 
Francis Bailey—see Proctor’s Myths and Marvels, p. 329. 

Feb. 13, 1836—in the western crater of Messier—according to 
Gruithuisen (Set. Amer. Sup., 7-2629)—two straight lines of 
light; between them a dark band that was covered wtih luminous 
points. 

Upon the nights of March 18 and 19, 1847, large luminous spots 
were seen upon the dark part of the moon, and a general glow 
upon the upper limb, by the Rev. T. Rankin and Prof. Chevalier 
( Rept. B. A., 1847-18). The whole shaded part of the disc 
seemed to be a mixture of lights and shades. Upon the night of 
the 19th, there was a similar appearance upon this earth, an 
aurora, according to the London newspapers. It looks as if both 
the moon and this earth were affected by the same illumination, 
said to have been auroral. I offer this occurrence as indication 
that the moon is nearby, if moon and earth could be so affected 
in common. 

But by signalling, I mean something like the appearance that 
was seen, by Hodgson, upon the dark part of the moon, night of 
Dec. 11, 1847—a bright light that flashed intermittently. Upon 
the next night it was seen again (Monthly Notices R. A. S., 
8-55). 

The oppositions of Mars occur once in about two years and 
two months. In conventional terms, the eccentricity of the orbit 
of Mars is greater than the eccentricity of the orbit of this earth, 


NEW LANDS 


101 


and the part of its orbit that is traversed by this earth in August 
is nearest the orbit of Mars. When this earth is between Mars 
and the sun, Mars is said to be in opposition, and this is the 
position of nearest approach: when opposition occurs in August, 
that is the most favorable opposition. After that, every two years 
and about two months, the oppositions are less favorable, until 
the least favorable of all, in February, after which favorableness 
increases up to the climacteric opposition in August again. This 
is a cycle of changing proximities within a period of about fifteen 
years. 

In October, 1862, Lockyer saw a spot like a long train of clouds 
on Mars, and several days later Secchi saw a spot on Mars. 
And if that were signalling, it is very meagre material upon which 
to suppose anything. And May 8-22, 1873—white spots on 
Mars. But, upon June 17, 1873, two months after nearest ap¬ 
proach, but still in the period of opposition of Mars, there was 
either an extraordinary occurrence, or the extraordinariness is in 
our interpretation. See Kept. B. A., 1874-272. A luminous ob¬ 
ject came to this earth, and was seen and heard upon the night 
of June 17, 1873, to explode in the sky of Hungary, Austria, 
and Bohemia. In the words of various witnesses, termed accord¬ 
ing to their knowledge, the object was seen seemingly coming 
from Mars, or from “the red star in the south,” where Mars was 
at the time. Our data were collected by Dr. Galle. The towns 
of Rybnik and Ratibor, Upper Silesia, are 15 miles apart. With¬ 
out parallax, this luminous thing was seen from these points “to 
emerge and separate itself from the disc of the planet Mars.” 
It so happens that we have a definite observation from one of 
these towns. At Rybnik, Dr. Sage was looking at Mars, at the 
time. He saw the luminous object “apparently issue from the 
planet.” There is another circumstance, and for its reception our 
credulity, or our enlightenment, has been prepared. If this thing 
did come from Mars, it came from the planet to the point where 
it exploded in about 5 seconds: from the point of explosion, the 
sound travelled in several minutes. We have a description from 
Dr. Sage that indicates that a bolt of some kind, perhaps electric, 
did shoot from Mars, and that the planet quaked with the shock— 
“Dr. Sage was looking attentively at the planet Mars, when he thus 


102 


NEW LANDS 


saw the meteor apparently issue from it, and the planet appear as 
if it was breaking up and dividing into two parts.” 

Some of the greatest surprises in commonplace experience are 
discoveries of the nearness of that which was supposed to be the 
inaccessibly remote. 

It seems that the moon is close to this earth, because of the 
phenomenon of “earthshine.” The same appearance has been 
seen upon the planet Venus. If upon the moon, it is light reflect¬ 
ing from this earth and back to this earth, what is it upon Venus? 
It is “some unexplained optical illusion” says Newcomb (Popular 
Astronomy, p. 296). For a list of more than twenty observations 
upon this illumination of Venus, see Rept. B. A., 1873-404. It 
is our expression that the phenomenon is “unexplained” because 
it does indicate that Venus is millions of miles closer to this 
earth than Venus “should” be. 

Unknown objects have been seen near Venus. There were 
more than thirty such observations in the eighteenth century, not 
relating to so many different periods, however. Our own earliest 
datum is Webb’s observation, of May 22, 1823. I know of only 
one astronomer who has supposed that these observations could 
relate to a Venusian satellite, pronouncedly visible sometimes, 
and then for many years being invisible: something else will have 
to be thought of. If these observations and others that we shall 
have, be accepted, they relate to unknown bulks that have, from 
outer space, gone to Venus, and have been in temporary suspension 
near the planet, even though the shade of Sir Isaac Newton would 
curdle at the suggestion. If, acceptably, from outer space, some¬ 
thing could go to the planet Venus, one is not especially startled 
with the idea that something could sail out from the planet Venus 
—visit this earth, conceivably. 

In the Rept. B. A., 1852-8, 35, it is said that, early in the 
morning of Sept. 11, 1852, several persons at Fair Oaks, Staf¬ 
fordshire, had seen, in the eastern sky, a luminous object. It 
was first seen at 4.15 a. m. It appeared and disappeared several 
times, until 4.45 A. m., when it became finally invisible. Then, 
at almost the same place in the sky, Venus was seen, having risen 
above the eastern horizon. These persons sent the records of their 


NEW LANDS 


103 


observations to Lord Wrottesley, an astronomer whose observatory 
was at Wolverhampton. There is published a letter from Lord 
Wrottesley, who says that at first he had thought that the supposi- 
titiously unknown object was Venus, with perhaps an extraor¬ 
dinary halo, but that he had received from one of the observers a 
diagram giving such a position relatively to the moon that he 
hesitated so to identify. It was in the period of nearest approach 
to this earth by Venus, and, since inferior conjunction (July 20, 
1852) Venus had been a “morning star.” If this thing in the sky 
were not Venus, the circumstances are that an object came close 
to this earth, perhaps, and for a while was stationary, as if 
waiting for the planet Venus to appear above the eastern horizon, 
then disappearing, whether to sail to Venus or not. We think 
that perhaps this thing did come close to this earth, because it 
was, it seems, seen only in the local sky of Fair Oaks. However, 
if, according to many of our data, professional astronomers have 
missed extraordinary appearances at reasonable hours, we can’t 
conclude much from what was not reported by them, after 4 o’clock 
in the morning. I do not know whether this is the origin of the 
convention or not, but this is the first note I have upon the now 
standardized explanation that, when a luminous object is seen in 
the sky at the time of nearest approach by Venus, it is Venus, at¬ 
tracting attention by her great brilliance, exciting persons, un¬ 
versed in astronomic matters, into thinking that a strange object 
had visited this earth. When reports are definite as to motions 
of a seemingly sailing or exploring, luminous thing, astronomers 
say that it was a fire-balloon. 

In the Rept. B. A., 1856-54, it is said that, according to “Mrs. 
Ayling and friends,” in a letter to Lord Wrottesley, a bright ob¬ 
ject had been seen in the sky of Petworth, Sussex, night of August 
11, 1855. According to description, it rose from behind hills, in 
the distance, at half past eleven o’clock. It was a red body, or 
it was a red-appearing construction, because from it were projec¬ 
tions like spokes of a wheel; or they were “stationary rays,” in 
the words of the description. “Like a red moon, it rose slowly, 
and diminished slowly, remaining visible one hour and a half.” 
Upon August 11, 1855, Venus was two weeks from primary great¬ 
est brilliance, inferior conjunction occurring upon Sept. 30. The 


104 


NEW LANDS 


thing could not have been Venus, ascending in the sky, at this 
time of night. An astonishing thing, like a red moon, perhaps 
with spokes like a wheel's, might, if reported from nowhere else, 
be considered something that came from outer space so close to 
this earth that it was visible only in a local sky, except that it 
might have been visible in other places, and even half past eleven 
at night may be an unheard-of hour for astronomers, who spe¬ 
cialize upon sunspots for a reason that is clearing up to us. Of 
course an ordinary fire-balloon could be extraordinarily described. 

June 8, 1868—I have not the exact time, but one does suspect 
that it was early in the evening—an object that was reported from 
Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford. It looked like a comet, but inas¬ 
much as it was reported only from Radcliffe, it may have been in 
the local sky of Oxford. It seemed to sail in the sky: it moved 
and changed its course. At first it was stationary; then it moved 
westward, then southward, then turning north, visible four min¬ 
utes. See Eng. Mec., 7-351. According to a correspondent to 
the Birmingham Gazette, May 28, 1868, there had been an ex¬ 
traordinary illumination upon Venus, some nights before: a red 
spot, visible for a few seconds, night of May 27. In the issue 
of the Gazette, of June 1st, someone else writes that he saw this 
light, appearing and disappearing upon Venus. Upon March 15, 
Browning had seen something that looked like a little shaft of 
light from Venus (Eng. Mec., 40-130); and upon April 6, Webb 
had seen a similar appearance (Celestial Objects, p. 57). At 
the time of the appearance at Oxford, Venus was in the period of 
nearest approach (inferior conjunction July 16, 1868). 

I think, myself, that there was one approximately great, wise 
astronomer. He was Tycho Brahe. For many years, he would 
not describe what he saw in the sky, because he considered it be¬ 
neath his dignity to write a book. The undignified, or more or 
less literary, or sometimes altogether too literary, astronomers, 
who do write books, uncompromisingly say that when a luminous 
object is said to have moved to greater degree than could be con¬ 
sidered illusory, in a local sky of this earth, it is a fire-balloon. 
It is not possible to find in the writings of astronomers who so 
explain, mention of the object that was seen by Coggia, night of 
August 1, 1871. It seems that this thing was not far away, and 


NEW LANDS 


105 


did appear only in a local sky of this earth, and if it did come 
from outer space, how it could have “boarded” this earth, if this 
earth moves at a rate of 19 miles a second, or 1 mile a second, is 
so hard to explain that why Proctor and Hind, with their pas¬ 
sionate itch for explaining, never took the matter up, I don’t 
know. Upon Aug. 1, 1871, an unknown luminous object was 
seen in the sky of Marseilles, by Coggia (Comptes Rendus, 
73-398). According to description, it was a magnificent red ob¬ 
ject. It appeared at 10.43 p. m., and moved eastward, slowly, 
until 10.52.30. It stopped—moved northward, and again, at 
10.59.30, was stationary. It turned eastward again, and, at 
11.3.20, disappeared, or fell behind the horizon. Upon this 
night Venus was within three weeks of primary greatest brilliance, 
inferior conjunction occurring upon Sept. 25, 1871. 


CHAPTER THREE 


O NE repeating mystery—the mystery of the local sky. 

How, if this earth be a moving earth, could anything 
sail to, fall to, or in any other way reach this earth, without 
being smashed into fine particles by the impact? 

This earth is supposed to rip space at a rate of about 19 miles 
a second. 

Concepts smash when one tries to visualize such an accomplish¬ 
ment. 

Now, three times over, we shall have other aspects of this one 
mystery of the local sky. First we shall take up data upon seem¬ 
ing relation between a region of this earth that is subject to 
earthquakes, or so-called earthquakes, and appearances in the sky 
of this especial region, and the repeating falls of objects and 
substances from this local sky and nowhere else at the times. 

We have had records of quakes that occurred at Irkutsk, Si¬ 
beria, and of stones that fell from the sky to Irkutsk. Upon 
March 8, 1829, a severe quake, preceded by clattering sounds, was 
felt at Irkutsk. There was something in the sky. Dr. Erman, 
the geologist, was in Irkutsk, at the time. In the Report of the 
British Association, 1854-20, it is said that, in Dr. Erman’s 
opinion, the sounds that preceded the quake were in the sky. 

The situation at Comrie, Perthshire, is similar. A stone fell, 
May 17, 1830, in the “earthquake region” around Comrie. It 
fell at Perth, 22 miles from Comrie. See Fletcher’s List, p. 100. 
Upon Feb. 15, 1837, a black powder fell upon the Comrie region 
(Edin. New Phil. Jour., 31-293). Oct. 12, 1839—a quake at 
Comrie. According to the Rev. M. Walker, of Comrie, the sky, 
at the time, was “peculiarly strange and alarming, and appeared 
as if hung with sackcloth.” In Mallet’s Catalog ( Kept. B. A., 
1854-290) it is said that, throughout the month of October, shocks 
were felt at Comrie, sometimes slight and sometimes severe—“like 
distant thunder or reports of artillery”—“the noise sometimes 

106 


NEW LANDS 


107 


seemed to be high in the air, and was often heard without any 
sensible shock.” Upon the 23rd of October, occurred the most 
violent quake in the whole series of phenomena at Comrie. See 
the Edin. New Phil. Jour., vol. 32. All data in this publication 
were collected by David Milne. According to the Rev. M. 
Maxton, of Foulis Manse, ten miles from Comrie, rattling sounds 
were heard in the sky, preceding the shock that was felt. In 
vol. 33, p. 373, of the Journal, someone who lived seven miles 
from Comrie is quoted: “In every case, I am inclined to say 
that the sound proceeded not from underground. The sound 
seemed high in the air.” Someone who lived at Gowrie, forty 
miles from Comrie, is quoted: “The most general opinion seems 
to be that the noise accompanying the concussion proceeded from 
above.” See vol. 34, p. 87: another impression of explosion over¬ 
head and concussion underneath: “The noises heard first seemed 
to be in the air, and the rumbling sound in the earth.” Milne’s 
own conclusion—“It is plain that there are, connected with the 
earthquake shocks, sounds both in the earth and in the air, which 
are distinct and separate.” If, upon the 23rd of October, 1839, 
there was a tremendous shock, not of subterranean origin, but from 
a great explosion in the sky of Comrie, and if this be accepted, 
there will be concussions somewhere else. The “faults” of dogmas 
will open; there will be seismic phenomena in science. I have a 
feeling of a conventional survey of this Scottish sky: vista of a 
fair, blue, vacant expanse—our suspicions daub the impression 
with black alarms—but also do we project detonating stimulations 
into the fair and blue, but unoccupied and meaningless. One 
can not pass this single occurrence by, considering it only in itself: 
it is one of a long series of quakes of the earth at Comrie and 
phenomena in the sky at Comrie. We have stronger evidence than 
the mere supposition of many persons, in and near Comrie, that, 
upon Oct. 23, 1839, something had occurred in the sky, because 
sounds seemed to come from the sky. Milne says that clothes, 
bleaching on the grass, were entirely covered with black particles 
which presumably had fallen from the sky. The shocks were felt 
in November: in November, according to Milne, a powder like 
soot fell from the sky, upon Comrie and surrounding regions. 
In his report to the British Association, 1840, Milne, reviewing 


108 


NEW LANDS 


the phenomena irom the year 1788, says: “Occasionally there 
was a fall of fine, black powder.” 

Jan. 8, 1840—sounds like cannonading, at Comrie, and a 
crackling sound in the air, according to some of the residents. 
Whether they were sounds of quakes or concussions that followed 
explosions, 247 occurrences, between Oct. 3, 1839 and Feb. 14, 
1841, are listed in the Edin. New Phil. Jour., 32-107. It looks 
like bombardment, and like most persistent bombardment—from 
somewhere—and the frequent fall from the sky of the debris of 
explosions. Feb. 18, 1841—a shock and a fall of discolored rain 
at Comrie (Edin. New Phil. Jour., 35—148). See Roper’s List 
of Earthquakes —year after year, and the continuance of this 
seeming bombardment in one small part of the sky of this earth, 
though I can find records only of dates and no details. However, 
I think I have found record of a fall from the sky of debris of 
an explosion, more substantial than finely powdered soot, at Crieff, 
which is several miles from Comrie. In the Amer. Jour. Sci., 
2-28-275, Prof. Shepard tells a circumstantial story of an object 
that looked like a lump of slag, or cinders, reported to have fallen 
at Crieff. Scientists had refused to accept the story, upon the 
grounds that the substance was not of “true meteoric material.” 
Prof. Shepard went to Crieff and investigated. He gives his 
opinion that possibly the object did fall from the sky. The story 
that he tells is that, upon the night of April 23, 1855, a young 
woman, in the home of Sir William Murray, Achterlyre House, 
Crieff, saw, or thought she saw, a luminous object falling, and 
picked it up, dropping it, because it was hot, or because she 
thought it was hot. 

For a description, in a letter, presumably from Sir William 
Murray, or some member of his family, see Year Book of Facts, 
1856-273. It is said that about 12 fragments of scorious matter, 
hot and emitting a sulphurous odor, had fallen. 

In Ponton’s Earthquakes, p. 118, it is said that, upon the 
8th of October, 1857, there had been, in Illinois, an earthquake, 
preceded by “a luminous appearance, described by some as a 
meteor and by others as vivid flashes of lightning.” Though 
felt in Illinois, the center of the disturbance was at St. Louis, 
Mo. One notes the misleading and the obscuring of such word- 


NEW LANDS 


109 


ing: in all contemporaneous accounts there is no sucn indefinite¬ 
ness as one description by “some” and another notion by “others.” 
Something exploded terrifically in the sky, at St. Louis, and shook 
the ground “severely” or “violently,” at 4.20 A. M., Oct. 8, 1857. 
According to Timbs’ Year Book of Facts, 1858-271, “a blinding 
meteoric ball from the heavens” was seen. “A large and brilliant 
meteor shot across the heavens” (St. Louis Intelligencer, Oct. 8). 
Of course the supposed earthquake was concussion from an ex¬ 
plosion in the sky, but our own interest is in a series that is similar 
to others that we have recorded. According to the New York 
Times, Oct 12, a slight shock was said to have been felt four 
hours before the great concussion, and another three days before. 
But see Milne’s Catalog of Destructive Earthquakes —not a men¬ 
tion of anything that would lead one way from safe and 
standardized suppositions. See Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 3-68— 
here the “meteor” is mentioned, but there is no mention of the 
preceding concussions. Time after time, in a period of about 
three days, concussions were felt in and around St. Louis. One 
of these concussions, with its “sound like thunder or the roar of 
artillery” (New York Times, Oct. 8) was from an explosion in 
the sky. If the others were of the same origin—how could de¬ 
tonating meteors so repeat in one small local sky, and nowhere 
else, if this earth be a moving body? If it be said that only by 
coincidence did a meteor explode over a region where there had 
been other quakes, here is the question: 

How many times can we accept that explanation as to similar 
series ? 

In the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 
19-144, a correspondent writes that, in Herefordshire, Sept. 24, 
1854, upon a day that was “perfectly still, sky cloudless,” he had 
heard sounds like the discharges of heavy artillery, at intervals of 
about two minutes, continuing several hours. Again the “mystery 
of the local sky”—if these sounds did come from the sky. We 
have no data for thinking that they did. 

In the London Times, Nov. 9, 1858, a correspondent writes 
that, in Cardiganshire, Wales, he had, in the autumn of 1855, 
often heard sounds like the discharges of heavy artillery, two or 


110 


NEW LANDS 


three reports rapidly, and then an interval of perhaps 20 minutes, 
also with long intervals, sometimes of days and sometimes of 
weeks, continuing throughout the winter of 1855-56. Upon the 
3rd of November, 1858, he had heard the sounds again, repeatedly, 
and louder than they had been three years before. In the Times , 
Nov. 12, someone else says that, at Dolgelly, he, too, had heard 
the “mysterious phenomenon,” on the 3rd of November. Some¬ 
one else—that, upon Oct. 13, he had heard the sounds at Swan¬ 
sea. “The reports, as if of heavy artillery, came from the west, 
succeeding each other at apparently regular intervals, during the 
greater part of the afternoon of that day. My impression was 
that the sounds might have proceeded from practicing at Milford, 
but I ascertained, the following day, that there had been no firing 
of any kind there.” Correspondent to the Times, Nov. 20—that, 
with little doubt, the sounds were from artillery practice at Milford. 
He does not mention the investigation as to the sounds of Oct. 13, 
but says that there had been cannon-firing, upon Nov. 3rd, at Mil¬ 
ford. Times, Dec. 1—that most of the sounds could be accounted 
for as sounds of blasting in quarries. Daily News, Nov. 16— 
that similar sounds had been heard, in 1848, in New Zealand, 
and were results of volcanic action. Standard, Nov. 16—that the 
“mysterious noise” must have been from Devonport, where a 
sunken rock had been blown up. So, with at least variety these 
sounds were explained. But we learn that the series began be¬ 
fore October 13. Upon the evening of Sept. 28, in the Dartmoor 
District, at Crediton, a rumbling sound was heard. It was not 
supposed to be an earthquake, because no vibration of the ground 
was felt. It was thought that there had been an explosion of 
gunpowder. But there had been no such terrestrial explosion. 
About an hour later another explosive sound was heard. It was 
like all the other sounds, and in one place was thought to be 
distant cannonading—terrestrial cannonading. See Quar. Jour. 
Geolog. Soc. of London, vol. 15. 

Somewhere near Barisal, Bengal, were occurring just such 
sounds as the sounds of Cardiganshire, which were like the sounds 
of Melida. In the Proc. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, Nov. 1870, are 
published letters upon the Barisal Guns. One writer says that 
the sounds were probably booming of the surf. Someone else 


NEW LANDS 


111 


points out that the sounds, usually described as “explosive,” were 
heard too far inland to be traced to such origin. A clear, calm 
day, in December, 1871—in Nature, 53-197, Mr. G. B. Scott 
writes that, in Bengal, he had heard “a dull, muffled boom, as if 
of distant cannon”—single detonations, and then two or three in 
quicker succession. 

In the London Times, Jan. 20, 1860, several correspondents 
write as to a sound “resembling the discharge of a gun high in 
the air” that was heard near Reading, Berkshire, England, Jan. 
17, 1860. See the Times, Jan. 24th. To say that a meteor had 
exploded would, at present, well enough account for this phe¬ 
nomenon. 

Sounds like those that were heard in Herefordshire, Sept. 24, 
1854, were heard later. In the English Mechanic, 100-279, it 
is said that, upon Nov. 9, 1862, the Rev. T. Webb, the astronomer, 
of Hardwicke, fifteen miles west of Hereford, heard sounds that 
he attributed to gunfire at Milford Haven, about 85 miles from 
Hardwicke. Upon Aug. 1, 1865, Mr. Webb saw flashes upon 
the horizon, at Hardwicke, and attributed them to gunfire at 
Tenby, upon occasion of a visit by Prince Arthur. Tenby, too, 
is about 85 miles from Hardwicke. There were other phenomena 
in a region centering around Hereford and Worcester. Upon 
Oct. 6, 1863, there was a disturbance that is now listed as an earth¬ 
quake; but in the London newspapers so many reports upon this 
occurrence state that a great explosion had been thought to occur, 
and that the quake was supposed to be an earthquake of subter¬ 
ranean origin only after no terrestrial explosion could be heard of, 
that the phenomenon is of questionable origin. There was a 
similar concussion in about the same region, Oct. 30, 1868. 
Again the shock was widely attributed to a great explosion, per¬ 
haps in London, and again was supposed to have been an earth¬ 
quake when no terrestrial explosion could be heard of. 

Arcdna of Science, 1829-196: 

That, near Mhow, India, Feb. 27, 1828, fell a stone “perfectly 
similar” to the stone that fell near Allahabad, in 1802, and a 
stone that fell near Mooradabad, in 1808. These towns are in 
the Northwestern Provinces of India. 


112 


NEW LANDS 


I have looked at specimens of these stones, and in my view 
they are similar. They are of brownish rock, streaked and spotted 
with a darker brown. A stone that fell at Chandakopur, in the 
same general region, June 6, 1838, is like them. All are as much 
alike as “erratics” that, because they are alike, geologists ascribe 
to the same derivation, stationary relatively to the places in which 
they are found. 

It seems acceptable that, upon July 15 and 17, 1822, and then 
upon a later date, unknown seeds fell from the sky to this earth. 
If these seeds did come from some other world, there is another 
mystery as well as that of repetition in a local sky of this earth. 
How could a volume of seeds remain in one aggregation; how 
could the seeds be otherwise than scattered from Norway to 
Patagonia, if they met in space this earth, and if this earth be 
rushing through space at a rate of 19 miles a second? It may 
be that the seeds of 1822 fell again. According to Kaemtz ( Mete¬ 
orology , p. 465) yellowish brown corpuscles, some round, a few 
cylindrical, were found upon the ground, June, 1830, near 
Griesau, Silesia. Kaemtz says that they were tubercules from 
roots of a well-known Silesian plant—stalk of the plant dries 
up; heavy rain raises these tubercules to the ground—persons of a 
low order of mentality think that the things had fallen from the 
sky. Upon the night of March 24-25, 1852, a great quantity of 
seeds did fall from the sky, in Prussia, in Heinsberg, Erklenz, 
and Juliers, according to M. Schwann, of the University of Liege, 
in a communication to the Belgian Academy of Science ( La 
Belgique Horticole, 2-319). 

In Comptes Rendus, 5-549, is Dr. Wartmann’s account of 
water that fell from the sky, at Geneva. At nine o’clock, morn¬ 
ing of Aug. 9, 1837, there were clouds upon the horizon, but the 
zenith was clear. It is not remarkable that a little rain should 
fall now and then from a clear sky: we shall see wherein this 
account is remarkable. Large drops of warm water fell in such 
abundance that people were driven to shelter. The fall continued 
several minutes and then stopped. But then, several times during 
an hour, more of this warm water fell from the sky. Year Book 
of Facts, 1839-262—that upon May 31, 1838, lukewarm water 
in large drops, fell from the sky, at Geneva. Comptes Rendus, 


NEW LANDS 


113 


15—290—no wind and not a cloud in the sky—at 10 o’clock, 
morning of May 11, 1842, warm water fell from the sky at Geneva, 
for about six minutes; five hours later, still no wind and no 
clouds, again fell warm water, in large drops; falling intermit¬ 
tently for several minutes. 

In Comptes Rendus, 85-681, is noted a succession of falls of 
stones in Russia: June 12, 1863, at Buschof, Courland; Aug. 8, 
1863, at Pillitsfer, Livonia; April 12, 1864, at Nerft, Courland. 
Also—see Fletcher’s List—a stone that fell at Dolgovdi, Volhynia, 
Russia, June 26, 1864. I have looked at specimens of all four of 
these stones, and have found them all very much alike, but not 
of uncommon meteoritic material: all gray stones, but Pillitsfer is 
darker than the others, and in a polished specimen of Nerft, 
brownish specks are visible. 

In the Birmingham Daily Post, June 14, 1858, Dr. C. Mans¬ 
field Ingleby, a meteorologist, writes: “During the storm on 
Saturday (12th) morning, Birmingham was visited by a shower 
of aerolites. Many hundreds of thousands must have fallen, some 
of the streets being strewn with them.” Someone else writes that 
many pounds of the stones had been gathered from awnings, and 
that they had damaged greenhouses, in the suburbs. In the Post, 
of the 15th, someone else writes that, according to his microscopic 
examinations, the supposed aerolites were only bits of the Rowley 
ragstone, with which Birmingham was paved, which had 
been washed loose by the rain. It is not often that sentiment 
is brought into meteorology, but in the Report of the British As¬ 
sociation, 1864-37, Dr. Phipson explains the occurrence mete¬ 
orologically, and with an unconscious tenderness. He says that 
the stones did fall from the sky, but that they had been carried 
in a whirlwind from Rowley, some miles from Birmingham. So 
we are to sentimentalize over the stones in Rowley that had been 
tom, by unfeeling paviers, from their companions of geologic 
ages, and exiled to the pavements of Birmingham, and then some 
of these little bereft companions, rising in a whirlwind and trav¬ 
elling, unerringly, if not miraculously, to rejoin the exiles. More 
dark companions. It is said that they were little black stones. 

They fell again from the sky, two years later. In La Science 
Pour Tons, June 19, 1860, it is said that, according to the Wolver- 


114 


NEW LANDS 


hampton Advertiser, a great number of little black stones had 
fallen, in a violent storm, at Wolverhampton. According to all 
records findable by me no such stones have ever fallen anywhere 
in Great Britain, except at Birmingham and Wolverhampton, 
which is 13 miles from Birmingham. 

Eight years after the second occurrence, they fell again. Eng¬ 
lish Mechanic, July 31, 1868—that stones “similar to, if not 
identical with the well-known Rowley ragstones” had fallen in 
Birmingham, having probably been carried from Rowley, in a 
whirlwind. 

We were pleased with Dr. Phipson’s story, but to tell of more of 
the little dark companions rising in a whirlwind and going uner¬ 
ringly from Rowley to rejoin the exiles in Birmingham is over¬ 
doing. That’s not sentiment: that’s mawkishness. 

In the Birmingham Daily Post, May 30, 1868, is published a 
letter from Thomas Plant, a writer and lecturer upon meteoro¬ 
logical subjects. Mr. Plant says, I think, that for one hour, morn¬ 
ing of May 29, 1868, stones fell, in Birmingham, from the sky. 
His words may be interpretable in some other way, but it does 
not matter: the repeating falls are indication enough of what we’re 
trying to find out—“From nine to ten, meteoric stones fell in im¬ 
mense quantities in various parts of town.” “They resembled, 
in shape, broken pieces of Rowley ragstone ... in every respect 
they were like the stones that fell in 1858.” In the Post, June 1, 
Mr. Plant says that the stones of 1858 did fall from the sky, 
and were not fragments washed out of the pavement by rain, be¬ 
cause many pounds of them had been gathered from a platform 
that was 20 feet above the ground. 

It may be that for days before and after May 29, 1868, occa¬ 
sional stones fell from some unknown region stationary above 
Birmingham. In the Post, June 2, a correspondent writes that, 
upon the first of June, his niece, while walking in a field, was 
struck by a stone that injured her hand severely. He thinks that 
the stone had been thrown by some unknown person. In the 
Post, June 4, someone else writes that his wife, while walking 
down a lane, upon May 24th, had been cut on the head by a 
stone. He attributes this injury to stone-throwing by boys, but 
does not say that anyone had been seen to throw the stone. 


NEW LANDS 


115 


Symons' Met. Mag., 4-137: 

That, according to the Birmingham Gazette, a great number of 
small, black stones had been found in the streets of Wolverhamp¬ 
ton, May 25, 1869, after a severe storm. It is said that the stones 
were precisely like those that had fallen in Birmingham, the year 
before, and resembled Rowley ragstone outwardly, but had a dif¬ 
ferent appearance when broken. 


CHAPTER FOUR 


U PON page 287, Popular Astronomy, Newcomb says that it 
is beyond all “moral probability” that unknown worlds 
should exist in such numbers as have been reported, and should 
be seen crossing the solar disc only by amateur observers and not 
by skilled astronomers. 

Most of our instances are reports by some of the best-known 
astronomers. 

Newcomb says that for fifty years, prior to his time of writ¬ 
ing (edition of 1878) the sun had been studied by such men as 
Schwabe, Carrington, Secchi, and Sporer, and that they had never 
seen unknown bodies cross the sun— 

Aug. 30, 1863—an unknown body that was seen by Sporer to 
cross the sun (Webb, Celestial Objects, p. 45). 

Sept. 1, 1859—two star-like objects that were seen by Carring¬ 
ton to cross the sun ( Monthly Notices, 20-13, 15, 88). 

Things that crossed the sun, July 31, 1826, and May 26, 
1828—see Comptes Rendus, 83-623, and Webb’s Celestial Ob¬ 
jects, p. 40. From Sept. 6, to Nov. 1, 1831, an unknown luminous 
object was seen every cloudless night, at Geneva, by Dr. Wart- 
mann and his assistants ( Comptes Rendus, 2-307). It was re¬ 
ported from nowhere else. What all the other astronomers were 
doing, Sept.-Oct., 1831, is one of the mysteries that we shall not 
solve. An unknown, luminous object that was seen, from May 
11 to May 14, 1835, by Cacciatore, the Sicilian astronomer (Amer. 
Jour. Sci., 31-158). Two unknowns that according to Pastorff, 
crossed the sun, Nov. 1, 1836, and Feb. 16, 1837 (An. Sci. Disc, 
1860-410)—De Vico’s unknown, July 12, 1837 (Observatory, 
2-424)—observation by De Cuppis, Oct. 2, 1839 (C. R., 83-314) 
—by Scott and Wray, last of June, 1847; by Schmidt, Oct. 11, 
1847 (C. R., 83-623)—two dark bodies that were seen, Feb. 5, 
1849, by Brown, of Deal (Rec. Sci., 1-138)—object watched by 

n6 


NEW LANDS 


117 


Sidebotnam, half an hour, March 12, 1849, crossing the sun 
(C. R., 83-622)—Schmidt’s unknown, Oct. 14, 1849 (Observ¬ 
atory, 3-137)—and an object that was watched, four nights in 
October, 1850, by James Ferguson, of the Washington Observ¬ 
atory. Mr. Hind believed this object to be a Trans-Neptunian 
planet, and calculated for it a period of 1,600 years. Mr. Hind 
was a great astronomer, and he miscalculated magnificently: this 
floating island of space was not seen again ( Smithson. Miscell. 
Cols., 20-20). 

About May 30, 1853—a black point that was seen against the 
sun, by Jaennicke ( Cosmos, 20-64). 

A procession—in the Rept. B. A., 1855-94, R. P. Greg says 
that, upon May 22, 1854, a friend of his saw, near Mercury, an 
object equal in size to the planet itself, and behind it an elongated 
object, and behind that something else, smaller and round. 

June 11, 1855—a dark body of such size that it was seen, with¬ 
out telescopes, by Ritter and Schmidt, crossing the sun (Observ¬ 
atory, 3-137). Sept. 12, 1857—Ohrt’s unknown world; seemed 
to be about the size of Mercury (C. R., 83-623)—Aug. 1, 1858— 
unknown world reported by Wilson, of Manchester (Astro. Reg., 
9-287). 

I am not listing all the unknowns of a period; perhaps the ob¬ 
ject reported by John H. Tice, of St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 15, 1859, 
should not be included; Mr. Tice was said not to be trustworthy 
—but who has any way of knowing? However, I am listing 
enough of these observations to make me feel like a translated 
European of some centuries ago, relatively to a wider existence— 
lands that may be the San Salvadors, Greenlands, Madagascars, 
Cubas, Australias of extra-geography, all of them said to have 
crossed the sun, whereas the sun may have moved behind some 
of them— 

Jan. 29, 1860—unknown object, of planetary size, reported 
from London, by Russell and three other observers (Nature, 
15-505). Summer of 1860—see Set. Amer., 35-340, for an ac¬ 
count, by Richard Covington, of an object, that without a telescope, 
he saw crossing the sun. An unknown world, reported by Loomis, 
of Manchester, March 20, 1862 (Monthly Notices, 22-232)—a 
newspaper account of an object that was seen crossing the sun, 


118 


NEW LANDS 


Feb. 12, 1864, y Samuel Beswick, of New York (Astro. Reg., 
2-161)—unknown that was seen, March 18, 1865, at Constanti¬ 
nople ( L’Ann. Sci., 1865-16)—unknown “cometic objects” that 
were seen, Nov. 4, 9, and 18, 1865 (Monthly Notices, 26—242). 

Most of these unknowns were seen in the daytime. Several re¬ 
flections arise. How could there be stationary regions over 
Irkutsk, Comrie, and Birmingham, and never obscure the stars— 
or never be seen to obscure the stars? A heresy that seems too 
radical for me is that they may be beyond the nearby stars. A 
more reasonable idea is that if nightwatchmen and policemen and 
other persons who do stay awake nights, should be given tele¬ 
scopes, something might be found out. Something else that one 
thinks of is that, if so many unknowns have been seen crossing 
the sun, or crossed by the sun, others not so revealed must exist 
in great numbers, and that instead of being virtually blank, space 
must be archipelagoic. 

Something that was seen at night; observer not an astronomer— 

Nov. 6, 1866—an account, in the London Times, Jan. 2, 1867, 
by Senor De Fonblanque, of the British Consulate, at Carthegena, 
U. S. Columbia, of a luminous object that moved in the sky. 
“It was of the magnitude, color, and brilliance of a ship’s red 
light, as seen at a distance of 200 yards.” The object was visible 
three minutes, and then disappeared behind buildings. De Fon¬ 
blanque went to an open space to look for it, but did not see it 
again. 


CHAPTER FIVE 


I F we could stop to sing, instead of everlastingly noting vol. this 
and p. that, we could have the material of sagas—of the 
bathers in the sun, which may be neither intolerably hot nor too un¬ 
comfortably cold; and of the hermit who floats across the moon; 
of heroes and the hairy monsters of the sky. I should stand in 
public places and sing our data—sagas of parades and explora¬ 
tions and massacres in the sky—having a busy band of accompa¬ 
nists, who set off fireworks, and send up balloons, and fire off ex¬ 
plosives at regular intervals—extra-geographic songs of boiling 
lakes and floating islands—extra-sociologic metres that express 
the tramp of space-armies upon inter-planetary paths covered with 
little black pebbles—biologic epics of the clouds of mammoths 
and horses and antelopes that once upon a time fell from the sky 
upon the northern coast of Siberia— 

Song that interprets the perpendicular white streaks in the repeat¬ 
ing mirages at Youghal—the rhythmic walruses of space that hang 
on by their tusks to the edges of space-islands, sometimes making 
stars variable as they swing in cosmic undulations—so a round 
space-island with its border of gleaming tusks, and we frighten 
children with the song of an ogre’s head, with a wide-open mouth 
all around it—fairy lands of the little moon, and the tiny civili¬ 
zations in rocky cups that are sometimes drained to their slums by 
the wide-mouthed ogres. The Maelstrom of Everlasting Catas¬ 
trophe that overhangs Genoa, Italy—and twines its currents 
around a living island. The ground underneath quakes with the 
struggle—then the fall of blood—and the fall of blood—three 
days the fall of blood from the broken red brooks of a living 
island whose mutilations are scenery— 

But after all, it may be better that we go back to Rept. B. A. 
—see vol. 1849, p. 46—a stream of black objects, crossing the sun, 
watched, at Naples, May 11, 1845, by Capocci and other astrono¬ 
mers—things that may have been seeds. 


120 


NEW LANDS 


A great number of red points in the sky of Urrugne, July 9, 
1853 {An. Soc. Met. de France, 1853-227). Astro. Reg., 5-179— 
C. L. Prince, of Uckfield, writes that, upon June 11, 1867, he saw 
objects crossing the field of his telescope. They were seeds, in his 
opinion. 

Birmingham Daily Post, May 31, 1867: 

Mr. Bird, the astronomer, writes that, about 11 a. m., May 30, 
he saw unknown forms in the sky. In his telescope, which was 
focussed upon them and upon the planet Venus, they appeared 
to be twice the size of Venus. They were far away, according to 
focus; also, it may be accepted that they were far away because an 
occasional cloud passed between them and this earth. They did 
not move like objects carried in the wind: all did not move in the 
same direction, and they moved at different speeds. 

“All of them seemed to have hairy appendages, and in many 
cases a distinct tail followed the object and was highly luminous.” 

Flashes that have been seen in the sky—and they’re from a 
living island that wags his luminous peninsular. Hair-like sub¬ 
stances that have fallen to this earth—a meadow has been shorn 
from a monster’s mane. My animation is the notion that it is 
better to think in tentative hysteria of pairs of vast things, travell¬ 
ing like a North and South America through the sky, perhaps 
one biting the other with its Gulf of Mexico, than to go on think¬ 
ing that all things that so move in the sky are seeds, whereas all 
things that swim in the sea are not sardines. 

In the Post, June 3, 1867, Mr. W. H. Wood writes that the ob¬ 
jects were probably seeds. Post, June 5—Mr. Bird says that the 
objects were not seeds. “My intention was simply to describe 
what was seen, and the appearance was certainly that of meteors.” 
He saves himself, in the annals of extra-geography—“whether they 
were meteors of the ordinary acceptation, is another matter.” 

And the planet Venus, and her veil that is dotted with blue- 
fringed cupids—in the Astronomical Register, 7-138, a corre¬ 
spondent writes, from Northhampton, that, upon May 2, 1869, he 
was looking at Venus, and saw a host of shining objects, not uni¬ 
form in size. He thinks that it is unlikely that so early in the 
spring could these objects be seeds. He watched them about an 
hour and twenty minutes—“many of the larger ones were fringed 


NEW LANDS 


121 


on one side, the fringe appearing somewhat bluish.” Or that it 
is better even to sentimentalize than to go on stupidly thinking 
that all such things in the sky are seeds, whereas all things in the 
sea are not the economically adjusting little forms without which 
critics of underground traffic in New York probably could not 
express themselves—the planet Venus—she approaches this lordly 
earth—the blue-fringed ecstasies that suffuse her skies. 

With the phenomena of Aug. 7, 1869, I suspect that the “phan¬ 
tom soldiers” that have been seen in the sky, may have been re¬ 
flections from, or mirages of, things or beings that march, in mili¬ 
tary formations, in space. In Popular Astronomy, 3-159, Prof. 
Swift writes that, at Mattoon, Ill., during the eclipse of the sun, 
of Aug. 7, 1869, he had seen, crossing the moon, objects that he 
thought were seeds. If they were seeds, also there happened to 
be seeds in the sky of Ottumwa, Iowa: here, crossing the visible 
part of the sun, twenty minutes before totality of the eclipse, Prof. 
Himes and Prof. Zentmayer saw objects that marched, or that 
moved, in straight, parallel lines (Les Mondes, 21-241). In the 
Jour. Frank. Inst., 3-58-214, it is said that some of these objects 
moved in one direction across the moon, and that others moved 
in another direction across another part of the moon, each division 
moving in parallel lines. If these things were seeds, also there 
happened to be seeds in the sky, at Shelleyville, Kentucky. Here 
were seen, by Prof. Winlock, Alvan Clark, Jr., and George W. 
Dean, things that moved across the moon, during the eclipse, in 
parallel, straight lines {Pop. Astro., 2-332). 

Whatever these things may have been, I offer another datum 
indicating that the moon is nearby: that these objects probably 
were not, by coincidence, things in three widely separated skies, 
parallelness giving them identity in two of the observations; and, 
if seen, without parallax, from places so far apart, against the 
moon, were close to the moon; that observation of such detail 
would be unlikely if they were near a satellite 240,000 miles away 
—unless, of course, they were mountain-sized. 

It may be that out from two floating islands of space, two pro¬ 
cessions had marched across the moon. Observatory, 3-137—that, 
at St. Paul’s Junction, Iowa, four persons had seen, without tele¬ 
scopes, a shining object close to the sun and moon, apparently; 


122 


NEW LANDS 


that, with a telescope, another person had seen another large ob¬ 
ject, crescentically illumined, farther from the sun and moon in 
eclipse. See Nature, 18-663, and Astro. Reg., 7-227. 

I have many data upon the fall of organic matter from the sky. 
Because of my familiarity with many records, it seems no more 
incredible that up in the seemingly unoccupied sky there should 
be hosts of living things than that the seeming blank of the ocean 
should swarm with life. I have many notes upon a phosphor¬ 
escence, or electric condition of things that fall from the sky, for 
instance the highly luminous stones of Dhurmsulla, which were 
intensely cold— 

Amer. Jour. Sci ., 2-28-270: 

It is said that, according to investigations by Prof. Shepard, 
a luminous substance was seen falling slowly, by Sparkman R. 
Scriven, a young man of seventeen, at his home, in Charleston, 
S. C., Nov. 16, 1857. It is said that the young man saw a fiery, 
red ball, the size and shape of an orange, strike a fence, breaking, 
and disappearing. Where this object had struck the fence, was 
found “a small bristling mass of black fibres.” According to 
Prof. Shepard, it was “a confused aggregate of short clippings of 
the finest black hair, varying in length from one tenth to one third 
of an inch.” Prof. Shepard says that this substance was not 
organic. It seems to me that he said this only because of the co¬ 
ercions of his era. My reason for so thinking is that he wrote 
that when he analyzed these hairs they burned away, leaving gray¬ 
ish skeletons, and that they were “composed in part of carbon,” 
and burned with an odor “most nearly bituminous.” 

For full details of the following circumstances, see Comptes 
Rendus, 13-215 and Rept. B. A., 1854-302: 

Feb. 17, 1841—the fall, at Genoa, Italy, of a red substance from 
the sky—another fall upon the 18th—a slight quake, at 5 p. m., 
Feb. 18th—another quake, six hours later—fall of more of the 
red substance, upon the 19th. Some of this substance was collected 
and analyzed by M. Canobbia, of Genoa. He says it was oily and 
red. 


CHAPTER SIX 


TN a pamphlet entitled Wonderful Phenomena , by Curtis Eli, 
A is the report of an occurrence, or of an alleged occurrence, that 
was investigated by Mr. Addison A. Sawin, a spiritualist. He in¬ 
terpreted in the only way that I know of, and that is the psyco- 
chemic process of combining new data with preconceptions with 
which they seem to have affinity. It is said that, at Warwick, C. 
W., Oct. 3, 1843, somebody named Charles Cooper heard a rum¬ 
bling sound in the sky, and saw a cloud, under which were three 
human forms, “perfectly white,” sailing through the air above 
him, not higher than the tree-tops. It is said that the beings 
were angels. They were male angels. That is orthodox. The 
angels wafted through the air, but without motions of their own, 
and an interesting observation is that they seemed to have belts 
around their bodies—as if they had been let down from a vessel 
above, though this poor notion is not suggested in the pamphlet. 
They “moaned.” Cooper called to some men who were laboring 
in another field, and they saw the cloud, but did not see the forms 
of living beings under it. It is said that a boy had seen the be¬ 
ings in the air, “side by side, making a loud and mournful noise.” 
Another person, who lived six miles away is quoted: “he saw the 
clouds and the persons and heard the sounds.” Mr. Sawin quotes 
others, who had seen “a remarkable cloud,” and had heard the 
sounds, but had not seen the angels. He ends up: “Yours is the 
glorious hope of the resurrection of the soul.” The gloriousness 
of it is an inverse function of the dolefulness of it: Sunday 
Schools will not take kindly to the doctrine—be good and you will 
moan forever. One supposes that the glorious hope colored the 
whole investigation. 

Some day I shall publish data that lead me to suspect that many 
appearances upon this earth that were once upon a time interpreted 
by theologians and demonologists, but are now supposed to be the 
subject-matter of Dsychic research, were beings and objects that 

123 


124 


NEW LANDS 


visited this earth, not from a spiritual existence, but from outer 
space. That extra-geographic conditions may be spiritual, or of 
highly attenuated matter, is not my present notion, though that, too, 
may be some day accepted. Of course all these data suffer, in 
one way, about as much distortion as they would in other ways, 
if they had been reported by astronomers or meteorologists. As to 
all the material in this chapter, I take the position that perhaps 
there were appearances in the sky, and perhaps they were revela¬ 
tions of, or mirages from, unknown regions and conditions of 
outer space, and spectacles of relatively nearby inhabited lands, and 
of space-travellers, but that all reports upon them were products 
of the assimilating of the unknown with figures and figments of 
the nearest familiar similarities. Another position of mine that 
will be found well-taken is that, no matter what my own interpreta¬ 
tions or acceptances may be, they will compare favorably, so far 
as rationality is concerned, with orthodox explanations. There 
have been many assertions that “phantom soldiers” have been seen 
in the sky. For the orthodox explanation of the physicists, see 
Brewster’s Natural Magic , p. 125: a review of the phenomenon 
of June 23, 1744; that, according to 27 witnesses, some of whom 
gave sworn testimony before a magistrate, whether that should be 
mentioned or not, troops of aerial soldiers had been seen, in Scot¬ 
land, on and over a mountain, remaining visible two hours and 
then disappearing because of darkness. In Clarke’s Survey of 
the Lakes (fol. 1789) is an account in the words of one of the 
witnesses. See Notes and Queries, 1-7-304. Brewster says 
that the scene must have been a mirage of British troops, who, 
in anticipation of the rebellion of 1745, were secretly manoeu¬ 
vring upon the other side of the mountain. With a talent for clear- 
seeing, for which we are notable, except when it comes to some 
of our own explanations, we almost instantly recognize that, to 
keep a secret from persons living upon one side of a mountain, 
it is a very sensible idea to go and manoeuvre upon the other 
side of the mountain; but then how to keep the secret, in a thickly 
populated country like Scotland, from persons living upon that 
other side of the mountain—however there never has been an ex¬ 
planation that did not itself have to be explained. 

Or the “phantom soldiers” that were seen at Ujest, Silesia, in 


NEW LANDS 


125 


1785—see Parish’s Hallucinations and Illusions, p. 309. Parish 
finds that at the time of this spectacle, there were soldiers, of this 
earth, marching near Ujest; so he explains that the “phantom 
soldiers” were mirages of them. They were marching in the 
funeral procession of General von Cosel. But some time later 
they were seen again, at Ujest—and the General had been dead 
and buried several days, and his funeral procession disbanded— 
and if a refraction can survive independently of its primary, so 
may a shadow, and anybody may take a walk where he went a 
week before, and see some of his shadows still wandering around 
without him. The great neglect of these explainers is in not ac¬ 
counting for an astonishing preference for, or specialization in, 
marching soldiers, by mirages. But' if often there be, in the 
sky, things or beings that move in parallel lines, and, if their 
betrayals be not mirages, but their shadows cast down upon the 
haze of this earth, or Brocken spectres, such frequency, or seem¬ 
ing specialization, might be accounted for. 

Sept. 27, 1846—a city in the sky of Liverpool ( Rept. B. A., 
1847-39). The apparition is said to have been a mirage of the 
city of Edinburgh. This “identification” seems to have been the 
product of suggestion: at the time a panorama of Edinburgh was 
upon exhibition in Liverpool. 

Summer of 1847—see Flammarion’s The Atmosphere, p. 160— 
story told by M. Grellois: that he was travelling between Ghelma 
and Bone, when he saw, to the east of Bone, upon a gently slop¬ 
ing hill, “a vast and beautiful city, adorned with monuments, 
domes, and steeples.” There was no resemblance to any city 
known to M. Grellois. 

In the Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, 21-180, is an account of a 
spectacle that, according to 20 witnesses, was seen for two hours 
in the sky of Vienne dans le Dauphine, May 3, 1848. A city— 
and an army, in the sky. One supposes that a Brewster would 
say that nearby was a terrestrial city, with troops manoeuvring 
near it. But also vast lions were seen in the sky—and that is 
enough to discourage any Brewster. Four months later, according 
to the London Times, Sept. 13, 1848, a still more discouraging— 
or perhaps stimulating—spectacle was, or was not, seen in Scot¬ 
land. Afternoon of Sept. 9, 1848—Quigley’s Point, Lough Foyle, 


126 


NEW LANDS 


Scotland—the sky turned dark. It seemed to open. The open¬ 
ing looked reddish, and in the reddish area, appeared a regiment 
of soldiers. Then came appearances that looked like war vessels 
under full sail, then “a man and a woman and a swan and a 
peahen.” The “opening” closed, and that was the last of this 
shocking or ridiculous mixture that nobody but myself would 
record as being worth thinking about. 

“Phantom soldiers” that were seen in the sky, near the Ban- 
mouth, Dec. 30, 1850 ( Rept . B. A., 1852—30). 

“Phantom soldiers” that were seen at Buderich, Jan. 22, 1854 
(Notes and Queries, 1-9-267). 

“Phantom soldiers” that were seen by Lord Roberts ( Forty- 
One Years in India, p. 219) at Mohan, Feb. 25, 1858. It is 
either that Lord Roberts saw indistinctly, and described in terms 
of the familiar to him, or that we are set back in our own no¬ 
tions. According to him, the figures wore Hindoo costumes. 

Extra-geography—its vistas and openings and fields—and the 
Thoreaus that are upon this earth, but undeveloped, because they 
can not find their ponds. A lonely thing and its pond, afloat 
in space—they crossed the moon. In Cosmos, n. s., 11-200, it is 
said that, night of July 7, 1857, two persons of Chambon had seen 
forms crossing the moon—something like a human being fol¬ 
lowed by a pond. 

“Phantom soldiers” that were seen, about the year 1860, at 
Paderbom, Westphalia (Crowe, Night-side of Nature, p. 416). 


CHAPTER SEVEN 


E attempt to co-ordinate various streaks of data, all of 



V V which signify to us that, external to this earth, and in re¬ 
lation with, or relatable to, this earth are lands and lives and a 
generality of conditions that make of the whole, supposed solar 
system one globule of circumstances like terrestrial circumstances. 
Our expressions are in physical terms, though in outer space there 
may be phenomena known as psychic phenomena, because of 
the solid substances and objects that have fallen from the sky to 
this earth, similar to, but sometimes not identified with, known 
objects and substances upon this earth. Opposing us is the more 
or less well-established conventional doctrine that has spun like a 
cocoon around mind upon this earth, shutting off research, and 
stifling even speculation, shelling away all data of relations and 
relatability with external existences, a doctrine that, in its vari¬ 
ous explanations and disregards and denials, is unified in one 
expression of Exclusionism. 

An unknown vegetable substance falls from the sky. The 
datum is buried: it may sprout some day. 

The earth quakes. A luminous object is seen in the sky. 
Substance falls from the unknown. But the event is cataloged 
with subterranean earthquakes. 

All conventional explanations and all conventional disregards 
and denials have Exclusionism in common. The unity is so 
marked, all writings in the past are so definitely in agreement, 
that I now think of a general era that is, by Exclusionism, as 
distinctly characterized as ever was the Carboniferous Era. 

A pregnant woman stands near Niagara Falls. There are 
sounds, and they are vast circumstances; but the cells of an un¬ 
born being respond, or vibrate, only as they do to disturbances in 
their own little environment. Horizons pour into a gulf, and 
thunder rolls upward: embryonic consciousness is no more than 


127 


128 


NEW LANDS 


to slight perturbations of maternal indigestion. It is Exclusion- 
ism. 

Stones fall from the sky. To the same part of this earth, they 
fall again. They fall again. They fall from some region that, 
relatively to this part of the earth’s surface, is stationary. But 
to say this leads to the suspicion that it is this earth that is sta¬ 
tionary. To think that is to beat against the walls of uterine 
dogmas—into a partly hairy and somewhat reptilian mass of 
social undevelopment comes exclusionist explanation suitable for 
such immaturity. 

It does not matter which of our subjects we take up, our ex¬ 
perience is unvarying: the standardized explanation will be Ex- 
clusionism. As to many appearances in the sky, the way of ex¬ 
cluding foreign forces is to say that they are auroras, which are 
supposed to be mundane phenomena. School children are taught 
that auroras are electric manifestations encircling the poles of 
this earth. Respectful urchins are shown an ikon by which an 
electrified sphere does have the polar encirclements that it should 
have. But I have taken a disrespectful, or advanced, course 
through the Monthly Weather Review, and have read hundreds 
of times of auroras that were not such polar crownings: of auroras 
in Venezuela, Sandwich Islands, Cuba, India; of an aurora in 
Pennsylvania, for instance, and not a sign of it north of Penn¬ 
sylvania. There are lights in the sky for which “auroral” is as 
good a name as any that can be thought - of, but there are others 
for which some other names will have to be thought of. There 
have been lights like luminous surfs beating upon the coasts of 
this earth’s atmosphere, and lights like vast reflections from 
distant fires; steady pencils of light and pulsating clouds and 
quick flashes and seeming objects with definite outlines, all in 
one poverty of nomenclature, for which science is, in some respects, 
not notable, called “auroral.” Nobody knows what an aurora is. 
It does not matter. An unknown light in the sky is said to be 
auroral. This is standardization, and the essence of this stand¬ 
ardization is Exclusionism. 

I see one resolute, unified, unscrupulous exclusion from sci¬ 
ence of the indications of nearby lands in the sky. It may not 
be unscrupulousness: it may be hypnosis. I see that all seeming 


NEW LANDS 


129 


hypnotics, or somnambulics of the past, who have most plausibly 
so explained, or so denied, have prospered and have had renown. 
According to my impressions, if a Brewster, or a Swift, or a 
Newcomb ever had written that there may be nearby lands and 
living beings in the sky, he would not have prospered, and his 
renown would be still subject to delayal. If an organism flour¬ 
ishes, it is said to be in harmony with environment, or with higher 
forces. I now conceive of successful and flourishing Exclusion- 
ism as an organization that has been in harmony with higher 
forces. Suppose we accept that all general delusions function so¬ 
ciologically. Then, if Exclusionism be general delusion; if we 
shall accept that conceivably the isolation of this earth has been 
a necessary factor in the development of the whole geo-system, we 
see that exclusionistic science has faithfully, though falsely, func¬ 
tioned. It would be world-wide crime to spread world-wide too 
soon the idea that there are other existences nearby and that they 
have been seen and that sounds from them have been heard: the 
peoples of this earth must organize themselves before conceiving 
of, and trying to establish, foreign relations. A premature sci¬ 
ence of such subjects would be like a United States taking part in 
a Franco-Prussian War, when such foreign relations should be 
still far in the future of a nation that has still to concentrate upon 
its own internal development. 

So in the development of all things—or that a stickleback may 
build a nest, and so may vaguely and not usefully and not ex- 
plicably at all, in terms of Darwinian evolution, foreshadow a 
character of coming forms of life; but that a fish that should try 
to climb a tree and sing to its mate before even the pterodactyl 
had flapped around with wings daubed with clay would be an 
unnoticed little clown in cosmic drama. But I do conceive that 
when the Carboniferous Era is dominant, and when not a dis¬ 
cordant thing will be permitted to flourish, though it may adum¬ 
brate, restrictions will not last forever, and that the rich and 
bountiful curse upon rooted things will some day be lifted. 


CHAPTER EIGHT 


P ATCHED by a blue inundation that had never been seen be¬ 
fore—this earth, early in the 60’s of the 19th century. 
Then faintly, from far away, this new appearance is seen to be 
enveloped with volumes of gray. Flashes like lightning, and 
faintest of rumbling sounds—then cloud-like envelopments roll 
away, and a blue formation shines in the sun. Meteorologists 
upon the moon take notes. 

But year after year there are appearances, as seen from the 
moon, that are so characterized that they may not be meteorologic 
phenomena upon this earth: changing compositions wrought with 
elements of blue and of gray; it is like conflict between Synthesis 
and Dissolution: straight lines that fade into scrawls, but that 
re-form into seeming moving symbols: circles and squares and 
triangles abound. 

Having had no mean experience with interpretations as products 
of desires, given that upon the moon communication with this 
earth should be desired, it seems likely to me that the struggles 
of hosts of Americans, early in the 60’s of the 19th century, were 
thought by some lunarians to be manoeuvres directed to them, or 
attempts to attract their attention. However, having had many 
impressions upon the resistance that new delusions encounter, so 
that, at least upon this earth, some benightments have had to wait 
centuries before finally imposing themselves generally, I’d think 
of considerable time elapsing before the coming of a general con¬ 
viction upon the moon that, by means of living symbols, and the 
firing of explosives, terrestrians were trying to communicate. 

Beacon-like lights that have been seen upon the moon. The 
lights have been desultory. The latest of which I have record 
was back in the year 1847. But now, if beginning in the early 
60’s, though not coinciding with the beginning of unusual and 
tremendous manifestations upon this earth, we have data as if 
of greatly stimulated attempts to communicate from the moon—» 

130 


NEW LANDS 


131 


why one assimilates one’s impressions of such great increase with 
this or with that, all according to what one’s dominant thoughts 
may be, and calls the product a logical conclusion. Upon the 
night of May 15, 1864, Herbert Ingall, of Camberwell, saw a 
little to the west of the lunar crater Picard, in the Mare Crisium, 
a remarkably bright spot (Astro. Reg., 2-264). 

Oct. 24, 1864—period of nearest approach by Mars—red lights 
upon opposite parts of Mars (C. R., 85-538). Upon Oct. 16, 
Ingall had again seen the light west of Picard. Jan. 1, 1865— 
a small speck of light, in darkness, under the east foot of the 
lunar Alps, shining like a small star, watched half an hour by 
Charles Grover (Astro. Reg., 3-255). Jan. 3, 1865—again the 
red lights of Mars (C. R., 85-538). A thread of data appears, 
as an offshoot from a main streak, but it can not sustain itself. 
Lights on the moon and lights on Mars, but I have nothing more 
that seems to signify both signals and responses between these two 
worlds. 

April 10, 1865—west of Picard, according to Ingall—“a most 
minute point of light, glittering like a star” (Astro. Reg., 3-189). 

Sept. 5, 1865—a conspicuous bright spot west of Picard (Astro. 
Reg., 3-252). It was seen again by Ingall. He saw it again 
upon the 7th, but upon the 8th it had gone, and there was a 
cloud-like effect where the light had been. 

Nov. 24, 1865—a speck of light that was seen by the Rev. 
W. O. Williams, shining like a small star in the lunar crater 
Carlini (Intel. Obs., 11-58). 

June 10, 1866—the star-like light in Aristarchus; reported by 
Tempel (Denning, Telescopic Work, p. 121). 

Astronomically and seleno-meteorologically, nothing that I know 
of has ever been done with these data. I think well of taking up 
the subject theologically. We are approaching accounts of a dif¬ 
ferent kind of changes upon the moon. There will be data seem¬ 
ing so to indicate not only persistence but devotedness upon the 
moon that I incline to think not only of devotedness but of de¬ 
votions. Upon the 16th of October, 1866, the astronomer 
Schmidt, of the land of Socrates, announced that the isolated ob¬ 
ject, in the eastern part of the Mare Serenitatis, known as Linne, 
had changed. Linne stands out in a blank area like the Pyramid 


132 


NEW LANDS 


of Cheops in its desert. If changes did occur upon Linne, the 
conspicuous position seems to indicate selection. Before October, 
1866, Linne was well-known as a dark object. Something was 
whitening an object that had been black. 

A hitherto unpublished episode in the history of theologies: 

The new prophet who had appeared upon the moon— 

Faint perceptions of moving formations, often almost rigorously 
geometric, upon one part of this earth, and perhaps faintest of 
signal-like sounds that reached the moon—the new prophet—and 
that he preached the old lunar doctrine that there is no god but 
the Earth-god, but exhorted his hearers to forsake their altars upon 
which had burned unheeded lights, and to build a temple upon 
which might be recited a litany of lights and shades. 

We are only now realizing how the Earth-god looks to the be¬ 
ings of the moon—who know that this earth is dominant; who see 
it frilled with the loops of the major planets; its Elizabethan ruff 
wrought by the complications of the asteroids; the busy little sun 
that brushes off the dark. 

God of the moon, when mists make it expressionless—a vast, 
bland, silvery Buddha. 

God of the moon, when seeing is clear—when the disguise is 
off—when, at night, from pointed white peaks drip the fluctu¬ 
ating red lights of a volcano, this earth is the appalling god of 
carnivorousness. 

Sometimes the great roundish earth, with the heavens behind it 
broken by refraction, looks like something thrust into a shell from 
external existence—clouds of tornadoes as if in its grasp—and it 
looks like the fist of God, clutching rags of ultimate fire and con¬ 
fusion. 

That a new prophet had appeared upon the moon, and had 
excited new hope of evoking response from the bland and shining 
Stupidity that has so often been mistaken for God, or from the 
Appalling that is so identified with Divinity—from the clutched 
and menacing fist that has so often been worshipped. 

There is no intelligence except era-intelligence. Suppose the 
whole geo-system be a super-embryonic thing. Then, by the law 
of the embryo, its parts can not organize until comes scheduled 
time. So there are local congeries of development of a chick in 


NEW LANDS 


133 


an egg, but these local centers can not more than faintly sketch 
out relations with one another, until comes the time when they 
may definitely integrate. Suppose that far back in the 19th cen¬ 
tury there were attempts to communicate from the moon; but sup¬ 
pose that they were premature: then we suppose the fate of the 
protoplasmic threads that feel out too soon from one part of an 
egg to another. In October, 1866, Schmidt, of Athens, saw and 
reported in terms of the concepts of his era, and described in con¬ 
ventional selenographic language. See Rept. B. A., 1867. 

Upon Dec. 14, 16, 25, 27, 1866, Linne was seen as a white 
spot. But there was something that had the seeming more of a 
design, or of a pattern, an elaboration upon the mere turning to 
white of something that had been black—a fine, black spot upon 
Linne; by Schmidt and Buckingham, in December, 1866 (The 
Student, 1-261). The most important consideration of all is 
reviewed by Schmidt in the Rept. B. A., 1867-22—that sunlight 
and changes of sunlight had nothing to do with the changing ap¬ 
pearances of Linne. Jan. 14, 1867—the white covering, or, at 
least, seeming of covering, of Linne, had seemingly disappeared— 
Knott’s impression of Linne as a dark spot, but “definition” was 
poor. Jan. 16—Knott’s very strong impression, which, however, 
he says may have been an illusion, of a small central dark spot 
upon Linne. Dawes’ observation, of March 15, 1867—“an ex¬ 
cessively minute black dot in the middle of Linne.” 

A geometric figure that was white-bordered and centered with 
black, formed and dissolved and formed again. 

I have an impression of spectacles that were common in the 
United States, during the War: hosts of persons arranging them¬ 
selves in living patterns: flags, crosses, and in one instance, in 
which thousands were engaged, in the representation of an enor¬ 
mous Liberty Bell. Astronomers have thought of trying to com¬ 
municate with Mars or the moon by means of great geometric con¬ 
structions placed conspicuously, but there is nothing so attractive to 
attention as change, and a formation that could appear and disap¬ 
pear would enchance the geometric with the dynamic That the 
units of the changing compositions that covered Linne were the 
lunarians themselves—that Linne was terraced—hosts of the in¬ 
habitants of the moon standing upon the ridges of their Cheops of 


134 


NEW LANDS 


the Serene Sea, some of them dressed in white and standing in a 
border, and some of them dressed in black, centering upon the 
apex, or the dark material of the apex left clear for the contrast, 
all of them unified in a hope of conveying an impression of the 
geometric, as the product of design, and distinguishable from the 
topographic, to the shining god that makes the stars of their 
heavens marginal. 

It is a period of great activity—or of conflicting ideas and 
purposes—upon the moon: new and experimental demonstrations, 
but also, of course, the persistence of the old. In the Astronomical 
Register, 5-114, Thomas G. Eiger writes that upon the 9th of 
April, 1867, he was surprised to see, upon the dark part of the 
moon, a light like a star of the 7th magnitude, at 7.30 p. m. It 
became fainter, and looked almost extinguished at 9 o’clock. Mr. 
Eiger had seen lights upon the moon before, but never before a 
light so clear—“too bright to be overlooked by the most careless 
observer.” May 7, 1867—the beacon-like light of Aristarchus— 
observed by Tempel, of Marseilles, when Aristarchus was upon 
the dark part of the moon (Astro. Reg., 5-220). Upon the night 
of June 10, 1867, Dawes saw three distinct, roundish, black 
spots near Sulpicius Gallus, which is near Linne; when looked 
for upon the 13th, they had disappeared (The Student, 1-261). 

August 6, 1867— 

And this earth in the sky of the moon—smooth and bland and 
featureless earth—or one of the scenes that make it divine and 
appalling—jaws of this earth, as seem to be rims of more or less 
parallel mountain ranges, still shining in sunlight, but surrounded 
by darkness— 

And, upon the moon, the assembling of the Chiaroscuroans, or 
the lunar communicationists who seek to be intelligible to this 
earth by means of lights and shades, patterned upon Linne by 
their own forms and costumes. The Great Pyramid of Linne, at 
night upon the moon—it stands out as a bold black triangularity 
pointing to this earth. It slowly suffuses white—the upward drift 
of white-clad forms, upon the slopes of the Pyramid. The jaws 
of this earth seem to munch, in variable light. There is no other 
response. Devotions are the food of the gods. 

Upon August 6, 1867, Buckingham saw upon Linne, which 


NEW LANDS 


135 


was in darkness, “a rising oval spot” ( Rept . B. A., 1867-7). In 
October, 1867, Linne was seen as a convex white spot (Rept. B. A., 
1867-8). 


Also it may be that the moon is not inhabited, and is not 
habitable. There are many astronomers who say that the moon 
has virtually no atmosphere, because when a star is passed over 
by the moon, the star is not refracted, according to them. See 
Clerke’s History of Astronomy, p. 264—that, basing his calcula¬ 
tions upon the fact that a star is never refracted out of place 
when occulted by the moon, Prof. Comstock, of Washburn Ob¬ 
servatory, had determined that this earth’s atmosphere is 5,000 
times as dense as the moon’s. 

I did think that in this secondary survey of ours we had pretty 
well shaken off our old opposition, the astronomers: however, with 
something of the kindliness that one feels for renewed meeting 
with the familiar, here we are at home with the same old kind of 
demonstrations: the basing of laborious calculations upon some¬ 
thing that is not so— 

See index of Monthly Notices, R. A. S. —many instances of 
stars that have been refracted out of place when occulted by the 
moon. See the Observatory, 24-210, 313, 315, 345, 414; English 
Mechanic, 23-197, 279; 26-229; 52—index, “atmosphere”; 
81-60; 84-161; 85-108. 

In the year 1821, Gruithuisen announced that he had discov¬ 
ered a city of the moon. He described its main thoroughfare and 
branching streets. In 1826, he announced that there had been 
considerable building, and that he had seen new streets. This 
formation, which is north of the crater Schroeter, has often been 
examined by disagreeing astronomers: for a sketch of it, in which 
a central line and radiating lines are shown, see the English 
Mechanic, 18-638. There is one especial object upon the moon 
that has been described and photographed and sketched so often 
that I shall not go into the subject. For many records of observa¬ 
tions, see the English Mechanic and VAstronomie. It is an ob¬ 
ject shaped like a sword, near the crater Birt. Anyone with 
an impression of the transept of a cathedral, may see the architec¬ 
tural here. Or it may be a mound similar to the mounds of 


136 


NEW LANDS 


North America that have so logically been attributed to the Mound 
Builders. In a letter, published in the Astronomical Register, 
20-167, Mr. Birmingham calls attention to a formation that sug¬ 
gests the architectural upon the moon—“a group of three hills in 
a slightly acute-angled triangle, and connected by three lower em¬ 
bankments.” There is a geometric object, or marking, shaped 
like an “X,” in the crater Eratosthenes ( Sci. Amer. Sup., 59-24, 
469); striking symbolic-looking thing or sign, or attempt by 
means of something obviously not topographic, to attract atten¬ 
tion upon this earth, in the crater Plinius (Eng. Mec., 35-34); 
reticulations, like those of a city’s squares, in Plato (Eng. Mec., 
64-253; and there is a structural-looking composition of angular 
lines in Gassendi (Eng. Mec., 101-466). Upon the floor of 
Littrow are six or seven spots arranged in the form of the Greek 
letter Gamma (Eng. Mec., 101-47). This arrangement may be 
of recent origin, having been discovered Jan. 31, 1915. The 
Greek letter makes difficulty only for those who do not want to 
think easily upon this subject. For a representation of something 
that looked like a curved wall upon the moon, see VAstronomie, 
1888-110. As to appearances like viaducts, see L’Astronomie, 
1885-213. The lunar craters are not in all instances the simple 
cirques that they are commonly supposed to be. I have many 
different impressions of some of them: I remember one sketch that 
looked like an owl with a napkin tucked under his beak. How¬ 
ever, it may be that the general style of architecture upon the 
moon is Byzantine, very likely, or not so likely, domed with 
glass, giving the dome-effect that has so often been commented 
upon. 

So then the little nearby moon—and it is populated by Lilipu- 
tians. However our experience with agreeing ideas having been 
what it has been, we suspect that the lunarians are giants. Hav¬ 
ing reasonably determined that the moon is one hundred miles 
in diameter, we suppose it is considerably more or less. 

A group of astronomers had been observing extraordinary lights 
in the lunar crater Plato. The lights had definite arrangement. 
They were so individualized that Birt and Eiger, and the other 
selenographers, who had combined to study them, had charted and 


NEW LANDS 


137 


numbered them. They were fixed in position, but rose and fell 
in intensity. 

It does seem to me that we have data of one school of com- 
municationists after another coming into control of efforts upon 
the moon. At first our data related to single lights. They were 
extraordinary, and they seem to me to have been signals, but there 
seemed to be nothing of the organization that now does seem to 
be creeping into the fragmentary material that is the best that we 
can find. The grouped lights in Plato were so distinctive, so clear 
and even brilliant, that if such lights had ever shone before, it 
seems that they must have been seen by the Schroeters, Gruit- 
huisens, Beers and Madlers, who had studied and charted the 
features of the moon. For several of Gledhill’s observations, 
from which I derive my impressions of these lights, see Rept. 
B. A., 1871-80—“I can only liken them to the small discs of 
stars, seen in the transit-instrument”; “just like small stars in the 
transit instrument, upon a windy night!” 

In August and September, 1869, occurred a notable illumination 
of the spots in Group I. It was accompanied by a single light 
upon a distant spot. 

February and March, 1870—illumination of another group. 

April 17, 1870—another illumination in Plato, but back to the 
first group. 

As to his observations of May 10-12, 1870, Birt gives his 
opinion that the lights of Plato were not effects of sunlight. 

Upon the 13th of May, 1870, there was an “extraordinary dis¬ 
play,” according to Birt: 27 lights were seen by Pratt, and 28 by 
Eiger, but only 4 by Gledhill, in Brighton. Atmospheric condi¬ 
tions may have made this difference, or the lights may have run 
up or down a scale from 4 to 28. As to independence of sun¬ 
light, Pratt says ( Rept . B. A., 1871-88) as to this display, that 
only the fixed, charted points so shone, and that other parts of 
the crater were not illuminated, as they would have been to an 
incidence common throughout. In Pratt’s opinion, and, I think, 
in the opinion of the other observers, these lights were volcanic. 
It seems to me that this opinion arose from a feeling that there 
should be something of an opinion: the idea that the lights might 
have been signals was not expressed by any of these astronomers 


138 


NEW LANDS 


that I know of. I note that, though many observers were, at this 
time, concentrating upon this one crater, there are no records find- 
able by me of such disturbance of detail as might be supposed to 
accompany volcanic action. The clear little lights seem to me to 
have been anything but volcanic. 

The play of these lights of Plato—their modulations and their 
combinations—like luminous music—or a composition of signals 
in a code that even in this late day may be deciphered. It was 
like orchestration—and that something like a baton gave direc¬ 
tion to Light 22, upon August 12, 1870, to shine a leading part— 
“remarkable increase of brightness.” No. 22 subsided, and the 
leading part shone out in No. 14. It, too, subsided, and No. 16 
brightened. 

Perhaps there were definite messages in a Morse-like code. 
There is a chance for the electricity in somebody’s imagination to 
start crackling. Up to April, 1871, the selenographers had 
recorded 1,600 observations upon the fluctuations of the lights of 
Plato, and had drawn 37 graphs of individual lights. All graphs 
and other records were deposited by W. R. Birt in the Library of 
the Royal Astronomical Society, where presumably they are to 
this day. A Champollion may some day decipher hieioglyphics 
that may have been flashed from one world to another. 


CHAPTER NINE 


O UR data indicate that the planets are circulating adjacencies. 

Almost do we now conceive of a difficulty of the future as 
being not how to reach the planets, but how to dodge them. Espe¬ 
cially do we warn aviators away from that rhinoceros of the skies, 
Mercury. I have a note somewhere upon one of the wickedest- 
looking horns in existence, sticking out far from Mercury. I 
think it was Mr. Whitmell who made this observation. I’d like 
to hear Andrew Barclay’s opinion upon that. I’d like to hear 
Capt. Noble’s. 

If sometimes does the planet Mars almost graze this earth, as is 
not told by the great telescopes, which are only millionaires’ 
memorials, or, at least, which reveal but little more than did the 
little spy glasses used by Burnham and Williams and Beer and 
Madler—but if periodically the planet Mars comes very close to 
this earth, and, if Mars, an island with perhaps no more surface- 
area than has England, but likely enough inhabited, like Eng¬ 
land— 

June 19, 1875—opposition of Mars. 

Flashes that were seen in the sky upon the 25th of June, 1875, 
by Charles Gape, of Scole, Norfolk {Eng. Mec., 21-488). The 
Editor of Symons' Met. Mag. (see vol. 10-116) was interested, 
and sent Mr. Gape some questions, receiving answers that nothing 
had appeared in the local newspapers upon the subject, and that 
nothing could be learned of a display of fireworks, at the time. 
To Mr. Gape the appearances seemed to be meteoric. 

The year 1877—climacteric opposition of Mars. 

There were some discoveries. 

We have at times wondered how astronomers spend their nights. 
Of course, according to many of his writings upon the subject, 
Richard Proctor had an excellent knowledge of whist. But in the 
year 1877, two astronomers looked up at the sky, and one of 
them discovered the moons of Mars, and the other called atten- 

139 


140 


NEW LANDS 


tion to lines on Mars—and, if for centuries, the moons of Mars 
could so remain unknown to all inhabitants of this earth except, 
as it were, Dean Swift—why it is no wonder that we so respect¬ 
fully heed some of the Dean’s other intuitions, and think that 
there may be Liliputians, or Brobdingnagians, and other forms not 
conventionally supposed to be. As to our own fields of data, I 
have a striking number of notes upon signal-like appearances 
upon the moon, in the year 1877, but have notes upon only one 
occurrence that, in our interests, may relate to Mars. The occur¬ 
rence is like that of July 31, 1813 and June 19, 1875. 

Sept. 5, 1877—opposition of Mars. 

Sept. 7, 1877—lights appeared in the sky of Bloomington, In¬ 
diana. They were supposed to be meteoric. They appeared and 
disappeared, at intervals of three or four seconds; darkness for 
several minutes; then a final flash of light. See Set. Amer., 
37-193. 

That all luminous objects that are seen in the sky when the 
planet Venus is nearest may not be Venus; may not be fire- 
balloons : 

In the Dundee Advertiser, Dec. 22, 1882, it is said that, be¬ 
tween 10 and 11 A. m., Dec. 21, at Broughty Ferry, Scotland, a 
correspondent had seen an unknown luminous body near and a 
little above the sun. In the Advertiser, Dec. 25, is published a 
letter from someone who says that this object had been seen at 
Dundee, also; that quite certainly it was the planet Venus and 
“no other.” In Knowledge, 2-489, this story is told by a writer 
who says that undoubtedly the object was Venus. But, in Knowl¬ 
edge, 3-13, the astronomer J. E. Gore writes that the object could 
not have been Venus, which upon this date was 1 h. 33 m., R. A., 
west of the sun. The observation is reviewed in VAstronomie, 
1883-109. Here it is said that the position of Mercury accorded 
better. Reasonably this object could not have been Mercury: sev¬ 
eral objections are comprehended in the statement that superior 
conjunction of Mercury had occurred upon Dec. 16. 

Upon Feb. 3, 1884, M. Staevert, of the Brussels Observatory, 
saw, upon the disc of Venus, an extremely brilliant point (Ciel 
et Terre, 5-127). Nine days later, Niesten saw just such a point 


NEW LANDS 


141 


of light as this, but at a distance from the planet. If no one had 
ever heard that such things can not be, one might think that these 
two observations were upon something that had been seen leaving 
Venus and had then been seen farther along. Upon the 3rd of 
July, 1884, a luminous object was seen moving slowly in the 
sky of Norwood, N. Y. It had features that suggest the struc¬ 
tural: a globe the size of the moon, surrounded by a ring; 
two dark lines crossing the nucleus (Science Monthly , 2-136). 
Upon the 26th of July, a luminous globe, size of the moon, was 
seen at Cologne; it seemed to be moving upward from this earth, 
then was stationary “some minutes,” and then continued upward 
until it disappeared ( Nature, 30-360). And in the English 
Mechanic , 40-130, it is not said that a luminous vessel that had 
sailed out from Venus, in February, visiting this earth, where it 
was seen in several places, was seen upon its return to the planet, 
but it is said that an observer in Rochester, N. Y., had, upon 
August 17, seen a brilliant point upon Venus. 


CHAPTER TEN 


E XPLOSIONS over the towns of Barisal, Bengal, if they 
were aerial explosions, were continuing. As to some of these 
detonations that were heard in May, 1874, a writer in Nature, 
53-197, says that they did seem to come from overhead. For a 
report upon the Barisal Guns, heard between April 28, 1888, and 
March 1, 1889, see Proc. Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, 1889-199. 

Phenomena at Comrie were continuing. The latest date in 
Roper’s List of Earthquakes is April 8, 1886, but this list goes 
on only a few years later. See Knowledge, n. s., 6-145—shock 
and a rumbling sound at Comrie, July 12, 1*894—a repetition 
upon the corresponding date, the next year. In the English 
Mechanic, 74-155, David Packer says that, upon Sept. 17, 1901, 
ribbon-like flashes of lightning, which were not ordinary lightning, 
were seen in the sky (I think of Birmingham) one hour before a 
shock in Scotland. According to other accounts, this shock was 
in Comrie and surrounding regions (London Times, Sept. 19, 
1901). 

Smithson. Miscell. Cols., 37-Appendix, p. 71: 

According to L. Tennyson, Quartermaster’s Clerk, at Fort 
Klamath, Oregon, at daylight, Jan. 8, 1867, the garrison was 
startled from sleep by what he supposed to be an earthquake and 
a sound like thunder. Then came darkness, and the sky was 
covered with black smoke or clouds. Then ashes, of a brownish 
color, fell—“as fast as I ever saw it snow.” Half an hour later 
there was another shock, described as “frightful.” No one was 
injured, but the sutler’s store was thrown a distance of ninety 
feet, and the vibrations lasted several minutes. Mr. Tennyson 
thought that somewhere near Fort Klamath, a volcano had broken 
loose, because, in the direction of the Klamath Marsh, a dark 
column of smoke was seen. I can find record of no such volcanic 
eruption. In a list of quakes, in Oregon, from 1846, to 1916, 

142 


NEW LANDS 


143 


published in the Bull. Sets. Soc. Amer., Sept., 1919, not one is 
attributed to volcanic eruptions. Mr. W. D. Smith, compiler of 
the list, says, as to the occurrence at Fort Klamath—“If there 
was an eruption, where was it?” He asks whether possibly it 
could have been in Lassen Peak. But Lassen Peak is in Cali¬ 
fornia, and the explosion upon Jan. 8, 1867 was so close to Fort 
Klamath that almost immediately ashes fell from the sky. 

The following is of the type of phenomena that might be con¬ 
sidered evidence of signalling from some unknown world nearby: 

La Nature, 17-126—that, upon June 17, 1881, sounds like 
cannonading were heard at Gabes, Tunis, and that quaking of 
the earth was felt, at intervals of 32 seconds, lasting about 6 
minutes. 

July 30, 1883—a somewhat startling experience—steamship 
Resolute alone in the Arctic Ocean—six reports like gunfire— 
Nature, 53-295. 

In Nature, 30-19, a correspondent writes that, upon the 3rd of 
January, 1869, a policeman in Harlton, Cambridgeshire, heard 
six or seven reports, as if of heavy guns far away. There is 
no findable record of an earthquake in England upon this date. 
In the London Times, Jan. 12, 15, 16, 1869, several correspond¬ 
ents write that upon the 9th of January a loud report had been 
heard and a shock felt at places near Colchester, Essex, about 
30 miles from Harlton. One of the correspondents writes that 
he had heard the sound but had felt no shock. In the London 
Standard, Jan. 12, the Rev. J. F. Bateman, of South Lopham, 
Norfolk, writes as to the occurrence upon the 9th—“An extraor¬ 
dinary vibration (described variously by my parishioners as being 
‘like a gunpowder explosion,’ ‘a big thunder clap,’ and ‘a little 
earthquake’ was noticed here this morning about 11.20.” In the 
Morning Post, Jan. 14, it is said that at places about twenty 
miles from Colchester it was thought that an explosion had oc¬ 
curred, upon the 9th, but, inasmuch as no explosion had been 
heard of, the disturbance was attributed to an earthquake. Night 
of Jan. 13—an explosion in the sky, at Brighton ( Rept. B. A., 
1869-307. In the Standard, Jan. 22, a correspondent writes 
from Swaffham, Norfolk, that, about 8 p. m., Jan. 15, something 
of an unknown nature had frightened flocks of sheep, which had 


144 


NEW LANDS 


burst from their bounds in various places. All these occurrences 
were in adjoining counties in southeastern England. Something 
was seen in the sky upon the 13th, and, according to the Chud- 
leigh Weekly Express, Jan. 13, 1869, something was seen in the 
sky, night of the 10th, at Weston-super-Mare, near Bristol, in 
southwestern England. It was seen between 9 and 10 o’clock, 
and is said to have been an extraordinary meteor. Five hours 
later were felt three shocks said to have been earthquakes. 

Upon the night of March 17, 1871, there was a series of events 
in France, and a series in England. A “meteor” was seen at 
Tours, at 8 p. m. —at 10.45, a “meteor” that left a luminous cloud 
over Saintes (Charante-Inferieure)—another at Paris, 11.15, 
leaving a mark in the sky, of fifteen minutes’ duration—another 
at Tours, at 11.45 p. m. See Les Mondes, 24-190, and Comptes 
Rendus, 72-789. There were “earthquakes” this night affecting 
virtually all England north of the Mersey and the Trent, and also 
southern parts of Scotland. As has often been the case, the phe¬ 
nomena were thought to have been explosions and were then said 
to have been earthquakes when no terrestrial explosions could be 
heard of (Symons' Met. Mag., 6-39). There were six shocks 
near Manchester, between 6 and 7 p. m., and others about 11 
p. m.; and in Lancashire about Up. m., and continuing in places 
as far apart as Liverpool and Newcastle, until 11.30 o’clock. 
The shocks felt about 11 o’clock correspond, in time, with the 
luminous phenomena in the sky of France, but our way of ex¬ 
pressing that these so-called earthquakes in England may have 
been concussions from repeating explosions in the sky, is to record 
that, according to correspondence in the London Times, there 
were, upon the 20th, aerial phenomena in the region of Lancashire 
that had been affected upon the 17th—“sounds that seemed to 
come from a number of guns at a distance” and “pale flashes of 
lightning in the sky.” 

Whether these series of phenomena be relatable to Mars or 
Martians or not, we note that in 1871 opposition of Mars was 
upon March 19; and, in 1869, upon Feb. 13; and in 1867 two 
days after the explosions at Fort Klamath. In our records in this 
book, similar coincidences can be found up to the year 1879. 


NEW LANDS 


145 


I have other such records not here published, and others that 
will be here investigated. 

There is a triangular region in England, three points of which 
appear so often in our data that the region should be specially 
known to us, and I know it myself as the London Triangle. It 
is pointed in the north by Worcester and Hereford, in the south 
by Reading, Berkshire, and in the east by Colchester, Essex. The 
line between Colchester and Reading runs through London. 

Upon Feb. 18, 1884, at West Mersea, near Colchester, a loud 
report was heard ( Nature, 53-4). Upon the 22nd of April, 1884, 
centering around Colchester, occurred the severest earthquake in 
England in the 19th century. For several columns of descrip¬ 
tion, see the London Times, April 23. There is a long list of 
towns in which there was great damage: in 24 parishes near 
Colchester, 1250 buildings were damaged. One of the places 
that suffered most was West Mersea ( Daily Chronicle, April 28). 

There was something in the sky. According to G. P. Yeats 
(Observations upon the Earthquake of Dec. 17, 1896, p. 6) there 
was a red appearance in the sky over Colchester, at the time of 
the shock of April 22, 1884. 

The next day, according to a writer in Knowledge, 5-336, a 
stone fell from the sky, breaking glass in his greenhouse, in 
Essex. It was a quartz stone, and unlike anything usually known 
as meteoritic. 

The indications, according to my reading of the data, and my 
impressions of such repeating occurrences as those at Fort Kla¬ 
math, are that perhaps an explosion occurred in the sky, near 
Colchester, upon Feb. 18, 1884; that a great explosion did occur 
over Colchester, upon the 22nd of April, and that a great volume 
of debris spread over England, in a northwesterly direction, pass¬ 
ing over Worcestershire and Shropshire, and continuing on toward 
Liverpool, nucleating moisture and falling in blackest of rain. 
From the Stonyhurst Observatory, near Liverpool, was reported, 
occurring at 11 A. M., April 26, “the most extraordinary dark¬ 
ness remembered”; forty minutes later fell rain “as black as ink,” 
and then black snow and black hail (Nature, 30-6). Black hail 
fell at Chaigley, several miles from Liverpool (Stonyhurst Mag - 


146 


NEW LANDS 


azine, 1-267). Five hours later, black substance fell at Crowle, 
near Worcester ( Nature , 30 L -32). Upon the 28th, at Church 
Stretton and Much Wenlock, Shropshire, fell torrents of liquid 
like ink and water in equal proportions ( The Field, May 3, 1884). 
In the Jour. Roy. Met. Soc., 11-7, it is said that, upon the 28th, 
half a mile from Lilleshall, Shropshire, an unknown pink sub¬ 
stance was brought down by a storm. Upon the 3rd of May, 
black substance fell again at Crowle ( Nature, 30-32). 

In Nature , 30-216, a correspondent writes that, upon June 22, 
1884, at Fletching, Sussex, southwest of Colchester, there was 
intense darkness, and that rain then brought down flakes of soot 
in such abundance that it seemed to be “snowing black.” This 
was several months after the shock at Colchester, but my datum 
for thinking that another explosion, or disturbance of some kind, 
had occurred in the same local sky, is that, as reported by the in¬ 
mates of one house, a slight shock was felt, upon the 24th of 
June, at Colchester, showing that the phenomena were continuing. 
See Roper’s List of Earthquakes. 

Was not the loud report heard upon Feb. 18 probably an ex¬ 
plosion in the sky, inasmuch as the sound was great and the quake 
little? Were not succeeding phenomena sounds and concussions 
and the fall of debris from explosions in the sky, acceptably upon 
April 22, and perhaps continuing until the 24th of June? Then 
what are the circumstances by which one small part of this earth’s 
surface could continue in relation with something somewhere else 
in space? 

Comrie, Irkutsk, and Birmingham. 


CHAPTER ELEVEN 


U PON the night of the 13th of July, 1875, at midnight, two 
officers of H. M. S. Coronation, in the Gulf of Siam, saw a 
luminous projection from the moon’s upper limb ( Nature, 
12-495). Upon the 14th it was gone, but a smaller projection 
was seen from another part of the moon’s limb. This was in the 
period of the opposition of Mars. 

Upon the night of Feb. 20, 1877, M. Trouvelot, of the Ob¬ 
servatory of Meudon, saw, in the lunar crater Eudoxus, which, 
like almost all other centers of seeming signalling, is in the north¬ 
western quadrant of the moon, a fine line of light {L’ Astronomie, 
1885-212). It was like a luminous cable drawn across the crater. 

March 21, 1877—a brilliant illumination, and not by the light 
of the sun, according to C. Barrett, in the lunar crater Proclus 
{Eng. Mec.y 25-89). 

May 15 and 29, 1877—the bright spot west of Picard {Eng. 
Mec. f 25-335). 

The changes upon Linne were first seen by Schmidt, in 1866, 
near the time of opposition of Mars. In May, 1877, Dr. Klein 
announced that a new obj,ect had appeared upon the moon. It was 
close to the center of the visible disc of the moon, and was in a 
region that had been most carefully studied by the selenographers. 
In the Observatory, 2-238, is Neison’s report from his own memo¬ 
randa. In the years 1874 and 1875, he had studied this part of 
the moon, but had not seen this newly reported object in the 
crater Hyginus, or the object, Hyginus N, according to the selen¬ 
ographers’ terminology. In the Astronomical Register, 17-204, 
Neison lists, with details, 20 minute examinations of this region, 
from July, 1870, to August, 1875, in which this conspicuous ob¬ 
ject was not recorded. 

June 14, 1877—a light on the dark part of the moon, resembling 
a reflection from a moving mirror; reported by Prof. Henry Har- 

147 


148 


NEW LANDS 


rison ( Sidereal Messenger, 3-150). June 15—the bright spot 
west of Picard, according to Birt ( JourB. A. A., 19-376). Upon 
the 16th, Prof. Harrison thought that again he saw the moving 
light of the 14th, but shining faintly. In the English Mechanic, 
25-432, Frank Dennett writes, as to an observation of June 17, 
1877—“I fancied I could detect a minute point of light shining 
out of the darkness that filled Bessel.” 

These are data of extraordinary activity upon the moon preced¬ 
ing the climacteric opposition of Mars, early in September, 1877. 

Now we have an account of an occurrence during an eclipse of 
the moon: 

On the night of the eclipse (Aug. 27, 1877) a ball of fire, of the 
apparent size of the moon, was seen, at ten minutes to eleven, 
dropping apparently from cloud to cloud, and the light flashing 
across the road (Astro. Reg., 1878-75). 

Astro. Reg., 17-251: 

Nov. 13, 1877—Hyginus N standing out with such prominence 
as to be seen at the first glance; 

Nov. 14, 1877—not a trace of Hyginus N, though seeing was 
excellent: 

Oct. 3, 1878—the most conspicuous of all appearances of Hy¬ 
ginus N; 

Oct. 4, 1878—not a trace of Hyginus N. 

Upon the night of Nov. 1, 1879, again in the period of opposi¬ 
tion of Mars (opposition Nov. 12) again the bright spot west of 
Picard (Jour. B. A. A., 19-376). But I have several records 
of observations upon this appearance not in times of opposition 
of Mars. Whether there be any relation with anything else or not, 
at five o’clock, morning of Nov. 1, 1879, a “vivid flash” was 
seen and a shock was felt at West Cumberland (Nature, 21-19). 

In the autumn of the year 1883, began extraordinary atmos¬ 
pheric effects in the sky of this earth. For Prof. John Haywood’s 
description of similar appearances upon the moon, Nov. 4, 1883 
and March 29, 1884, see the Sidereal Messenger, 3-121. They 
were misty light-effects upon the dark part of the moon, not like 
“earthshine.” Our expression is that so close is the moon to 
this earth that it, too, may be affected by phenomena in the atmos¬ 
phere of this earth. 


NEW LANDS 


149 


Something like another luminous cable, or like a shining wall, 
that was seen in Aristarchus, by Trouvelot, Jan. 23, 1880 
{UAstro., 1885-215); a speck of light in Marius, Jan. 13, 1881, 
by A. S. Williams (Eng. Mec., 32-494); unexplained light in 
Eudoxus, by Trouvelot, May 4, 1881 (VAstro., 1885-213); an 
illumination in Kepler, by Morales, Feb. 5, 1884 (VAstro., 9- 
149). 

In Knowledge, 7-224, William Gray writes that, upon Feb. 19, 
1885, he saw, in Hercules, a dull, deep, reddish appearance. In 
UAstronomie, 1885-227, Lorenzo Kropp, an astronomer of Pay- 
sandu, Uruguay, writes that, upon Feb. 21, 1885, he had seen, in 
Cassini, a formation not far from Hercules, both of them in the 
northwestern quadrant of the moon, a reddish smoke or mist. He 
had heard that several other persons had seen, not a misty ap¬ 
pearance, but a star-like light here, and upon the 22nd he had 
seen a definite light, himself, shining like the planet Saturn. 

May 11, 1885—two lights upon the moon (L’Astro., 9-73). 

May 11, 1886—two lights upon the moon (L’Astro., 6-312). 


CHAPTER TWELVE 


T HAT through lenses rimmed with horizons inhabitants of 
this earth have seen revelations of other worlds—that at¬ 
mospheric strata of different densities are lenses but that the 
faults of the wide glasses in the observatories are so intensified 
in atmospheric revelations that all our data are distortions. Our 
acceptance is that every mirage has a primary; that in human 
mind all poetry is based upon observation, and that imagery in 
the sky is similarly uncreative. If a mirage can not be traced to 
the known upon this earth, one supposes that it is either a deri¬ 
vation from the unknown upon this earth, or from the unknown 
somewhere else. We shall have data of a series of mirages in 
Sweden, or upon the shores of the Baltic, from Oct., 1881, to 
Dec., 1888. I take most of the data from Nature , Knowledge , 
Cosmos , and VAstronomie, published in this period. I have no 
data of such appearances in this region either before or after 
this period: the suggestion in my own mind is that they were 
not mirages from terrestrial primaries, or they would not be so 
confined to one period, but were shadows or mirages from some¬ 
thing that was in temporary suspension over the Baltic and 
Sweden, all details distorted and reported in terms of familiar 
terrestrial appearances. 

Oct. 10, 1881—that at Rugenwalde, Pomerania, the mirage of 
a village had been seen: snow-covered roofs from which hung 
icicles; human forms distinctly visible. It was believed that the 
mirage was a representation of the town of Nexo, on the island 
of Bornholm. Rugenwalde is on the Baltic, and Nexo is about 
100 miles northwest, in the Baltic. 

The first definite account of the mirages of Sweden, findable 
by me, is published in Nature, June 29, 1882, where it is said 
that preceding instances had attracted attention—that, in May, 
1882, over Lake Orsa, Sweden, representations of steamships had 
been seen, and then “islands covered with vegetation.” Night of 

150 


NEW LANDS 


1S1 


Ma y 19, 1883—beams of light at Lake Ludyika, Sweden—they 
looked like a representation of a lake in moonshine, with shores 
covered with trees, showing faint outlines of farms {Monthly 
Weather Review , May, 1883). May 28, 1883—at Finsbo, 
Sweden—changing scenes, at short intervals: mountains, lakes, 
and farms. Oct. 16, 1884—Lindsberg—a large town, with four- 
storied houses, a castle and a lake. May 22, 1885—Gothland—a 
town surrounded by high mountains, a large vessel in front of 
the town. June 15, 1885—near Oxelosund—two wooded islands, 
a construction upon one of them, and two warships. It is said 
that at the time two Swedish warships were at sea, but were at 
considerable distance north of Oxelosund. Sept. 12, 1885—Valla 
' a representation that is said to have been a “remarkable mi¬ 
rage” but that is described as if the appearances were cloud-forms 
—several monitors, one changing into a spouting whale, and the 
other into a crocodile—then forests—dancers—a wooded island 
with buildings and a park. Sept. 29, 1885—again at Valla—be¬ 
tween 8 and 9 o’clock, p. m.; a lurid glare upon the northwestern 
horizon; a cloud bank—animals, groups of dancers, a forest, and 
then a park with paths. July 15, 1888—Hudikwall—a tem¬ 
pestuous sea, and a vessel upon it; a small boat leaving the ves¬ 
sel. Upon Oct. 8, 1888, at Merexull, on the Baltic, but in Rus¬ 
sia, was seen a mirage of a city that lasted an hour. It is said 
that some buildings were recognized, and that the representation 
was identified with St. Petersburgh, which is about 200 miles 
from the Baltic. 

That a large, substantial mass, presumably of land, can be in 
at least temporary suspension over a point upon this earth’s sur¬ 
face, and not fall, and be, in ordinary circumstances, invisible— 

In L’Astronomie, 1887-426, MM. Codde and Payan, both of 
them astronomers, well-known for their conventional observations 
and writings, publish accounts of an unknown body that appeared 
upon the sun’s limb, for twenty or thirty seconds, after the eclipse 
of August 19, 1887. They saw a round body, apparent diameter 
about one tenth of the apparent diameter of the sun, according 
to the sketch that is published. In L’Astronomie, these two 
observers write separately, and, in the city of Marseilles, their 


152 NEW LANDS 

observations were made at a distance apart. But the unknown 
body was seen by both upon the same part of the sun’s limb. So 
it is supposed that it could not have been a balloon, nor a cir¬ 
cular cloud, nor anything else very near this earth. But many 
astronomers in other parts of Europe were watching this eclipse, 
and it seems acceptable that others, besides two in Marseilles, con¬ 
tinued to look, immediately after the eclipse; but from nowhere 
else came a report upon this object, so that all indications are 
that it was far from the sun and near Marseilles, but farther than 
clouds or balloons in this local sky. I can draw no diagram that 
can satisfy all these circumstances, except by supposing the sun 
to be only a few thousand miles away. 

If little black stones fall four times, in eleven years, to one 
part of this earth’s surface, and fall nowhere else, we are, in 
conceiving of a fixed origin somewhere above a stationary earth, 
at least conceiving in terms of data, and, whether we are fanatics 
or not, we are not of the type of other upholders of stationariness 
of this earth, who care more for Moses than they do for data. 
I’d not like to have it thought that we are not great admirers of 
Moses, sometimes. 

The rock that hung in the sky of Servia— 

Upon October 13, 1872, a stone fell from the sky, to this earth, 

near the town of Soko-Banja, Servia. If it were not a peculiar 

stone, there is no force to this datum. It is said that it was un¬ 
known stone. A name was invented for it. The stone was 

called banjite, after the town near which it fell. 

Seventeen years later (Dec. 1, 1889) another rock of banjite 
fell in Servia, near Jelica. 

For Meunier’s account of these stones, see UAstronomie, 1890- 
272, and Comptes Rendus, 92-331. Also, see La Nature, 1881— 
1-192. According to Meunier these stones did fall from the sky; 
indigenous to this earth there are no such stones; nowhere else 
have such stones fallen from the sky; they are identical in ma¬ 
terial; they fell seventeen years apart. 

At times when we think favorably of this work of ours, we see 
in it a pointing-out of an evil of modern specialization. A seis- 


NEW LANDS 


153 


mologist studies earthquakes, and an astronomer studies meteors; 
neither studies both earthquakes and meteors, and consequently 
each, ignorant of the data collected by the other, sees no relation 
between the two phenomena. The treatment of the event in 
Servia, Dec. 1, 1889, is an instance of conventional scientific at¬ 
tempts to understand something by separately, or specially, focus- 
sing upon different aspects, and not combining into an inclusive 
concept. Meunier writes only upon the stones that fell from 
the sky, and does not mention an earthquake at the time. Milne, 
in his Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes, lists the occurrence 
as an earthquake, and does not mention stones that fell from 
the sky. All combinations greatly affect the character of com¬ 
ponents: in our combination of the two aspects, we see that 
the phenomenon was not an earthquake, as earthquakes are com¬ 
monly understood, though it may have been meteoric; but was not 
meteoric, in ordinary terms of meteors, because of the unlikelihood 
that meteors, identical in material, should, seventeen years apart, 
fall upon the same part of this earth’s surface, and nowhere else. 

This occurrence was of course an explosion in the sky, and 
its vibrations were communicated to the earth below, with all 
the effects of any other kind of earthquakes. Back in our earli¬ 
est confusion of the data of a century’s first quarter, we had 
awareness of this combination and its conventional misinterpre¬ 
tation: that many concussions that have been communicated from 
explosions in the sky have been cataloged in lists of subterranean 
earthquakes. We are farther along now, in our data of the 
19th century, and now we come across awareness, in other minds, 
of this distinguishment. At 8:20 a. m., Nov. 20, 1887, was 
heard and felt something that was reported from many places in 
the region that is known to us as the London Triangle, as an 
earthquake, though in some towns it was thought that a great ex¬ 
plosion, perhaps in London, had occurred. It was reported from 
Reading, and from four towns near Reading, and Reading is said 
to be one of the places where the concussion was greatest. There 
were several accounts of slight alarm among sheep, which are 
sensitive to meteors and earthquakes. But, in Symons' Met. Mag., 
Mr. H. G. Fordham wrote that the occurrence was not an earth¬ 
quake; that a meteor had exploded. He had very little to base 


154 


NEW LANDS 


this opinion upon: out of scores of descriptions, he had record 
of only two assertions that something had been seen in the 
sky. Nevertheless, because the sound was so much greater than 
the concussion, Mr. Fordham came to his conclusion. 

In Symons’ Met. Mag., 23-154, Dr. R. H. Wake writes that, 
upon the evening of Nov. 3, 1888, in a region about four miles 
wide and ten or fifteen miles long, in the Thames Valley (near 
Reading) flocks of sheep had rushed from their folds in a com¬ 
mon alarm. About a year later, in the Chiltern Hills, which ex¬ 
tend in a northeasterly direction from the Thames Valley, near 
Reading, there was another such occurrence. In the London 
Standard, Nov. 7, 1889, the Rev. J. Ross Barker, of Chesham, a 
town about 25 miles northeast of Reading, writes that, upon Oct. 
25, 1889, many flocks of sheep, in a region of 30 square miles, 
had, by common impulse, broken from their folds. Mr. Barker 
asks whether anyone knew of a meteor or of an earthquake at the 
time. In vol. 24, Symons’ Met. Mag., Mr. Symons accepts that 
all three of these occurrences were effects of meteoric explosions in 
the sky. The phenomena are insignificant relatively to some that 
we have considered: the significance is in this definite recognition 
in orthodoxy, itself, that some supposed earthquakes, or effects of 
supposed earthquakes, are reactions to explosions in the sky. 


CHAPTER THIRTEEN 


E XPLODING monasteries that shoot out clouds of monks into 
cyclonic formations with stormy nuns similarly dispossessed 
or collapsing monasteries—sometimes slowly crumbling con¬ 
fines of the cloistered—by which we typify all things: that all de¬ 
velopments pass through a process of walling-away within shells 
that will break. Once upon a time there was a shell around the 
United States. The shell broke. Some other things were 
smashed. 

The doctrines of great distances among heavenly bodies, and 
of a moving earth are the strongest elements of Exclusionism: the 
mere idea of separations by millions of miles discourages thoughts 
of communication with other worlds; and only to think that this 
earth shoots through space at a velocity of 19 miles a second puts 
an end to speculation upon how to leave it and how to return. 
But, if these two conventions be features of a walling-away like 
that of a chick within its shell, or that of the United States within 
its boundaries, and if some day all such confinements of the 
embryonic break, our own prophecy, in the vague terms of all 
successful prophecies, is that a matured view of astronomic phe¬ 
nomena will be from a litter of broken demonstrations. 

Our expression now is upon the function of Isolation in De¬ 
velopment. Specially it is not ours, because I think we learned 
it from the biologists, but we are applying it generally. If the 
general expression be accepted, we conceive that functionally have 
the astronomers taught that planets are millions of miles away, 
and that this earth moves at such terrific velocity that it is en¬ 
cysted with speed. Whether isolations function or not, that ex¬ 
clusions that break down are typical of all developments is signi¬ 
fied by data upon all growing things, beginning with the aristo¬ 
cratic seeds, which, however, liberalize to intercourse with mean 
materials or die. All animal-organisms are at first walled away. 

155 


156 


NEW LANDS 


In human circumstances conditions are the same. The develop¬ 
ment of every science has been a series of temporary exclusions, 
and the story of every industry tells of inventions that were re¬ 
sisted, but that were finally admitted. At the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, Hegel published his demonstration that there 
could be only seven planets: too late to recall the work, he learned 
that Ceres had been discovered. It is our expression that the 
mental state of Hegel partook of a general spirit of his time, and 
that it was necessary, or that it functioned, because early as¬ 
tronomers could scarcely have systematized their doctrine had they 
been bewildered by seven or eight hundred planetary bodies; and 
that, besides the functions of the astronomers, according to our 
expressions, there was also their usefulness in breaking down the 
walls of the older, and outlived, orthodoxy. We conceive that 
it is well that a great deal of experience should be withheld from 
children, and that, any way, in their early years, they are sexually 
isolated, for instance, and our idea is that our data have been held 
back by no outspoken conspiracy, but by an inhibition similar to 
that by which a great deal of biology, for instance, is not taught 
to children. But, if we think of something of this kind, equally 
acceptable is it that even in the face of orthodox principles, these 
data have been preserved in orthodox publications, and that, in 
the face of supposed principles of Darwinism, as applied generally 
they have survived, though not in harmony with their environ¬ 
ment. 

Tons of paper have been consumed by calculations upon the 
remoteness of stars and planets. But I can find nothing that 
has been calculated, or said, that is sounder than Mr. Shaw’s de¬ 
termination that the moon is 37 miles away. It is that the Vogels 
and the Struves and the Newcombs have been functionally hyp¬ 
notized and have usefully spread the embryonic delusion that there 
is a vast, untraversible expanse of space around this earth, or 
that they have had some basis that it has been my misfortune 
to be unable to find, or that there is no pleasant and unaccusatory 
way of explaining them. 

April 10, 1874—a luminous object that exploded in the sky of 
Kuttenberg, Bohemia. It is said that the glare was like sunlight, 
and that the “terrifying flash” was followed by a detonation that 


NEW LANDS 


157 


rumbled about a minute. April 9, 1876—an explosion that is 
said to have been violent, over the town of Rosenau, Hungary. 
See Rept. B. A ., 1877-147. 

These two objects which appeared in virtually the same local 
sky of this earth—points of explosion 250 miles apart—came from 
virtually the same point in the sky: constellation of Cassiopeia; 
different by two degrees in right ascension, and with no difference 
m declination. About the same time in the evening: one at 8.9 
p. m., and the other at 8.20 p. m. Same night in the year, accord¬ 
ing to extra-terrestrial calendars: the year 1876 was a leap year. 

If they had been ordinary meteors, by coincidence two ordi¬ 
nary meteors of the same stream might, exactly two years apart, 
come from almost the same point in the heavens and strike 
almost the same point over this earth. But they were two of the 
most extraordinary occurrences in the records of explosions in the 
sky. Coincidences multiply, or these objects did come from the 
not far-distant constellation Cassiopeia, and their striking so 
c osely together indicates that this earth is stationary; and some¬ 
thing of the purposeful may be thought of. Serially related to 
these events, or representing some more coincidence, there had 
been, upon June 9, 1866, a tremendous explosion in the sky of 
Knysahinya, Hungary, and about a thousand stones had fallen 
from the sky (Rept. B, A., 1867-430). Rosenau and Knysahinya 
are about 75 miles apart. Of course one can very much extend 
our own circumscribed little notions, and think of the firing of 
projectiles from beyond the stars, just as one can think of our 
unknown lands as being not in the immediate sky of Servia or 
Birmingham or Comrie, but as being beyond the nearby stars, 
reducing everything more than we have reduced—but the firing 
of stones to this earth seems crude to me. Of course, objects, or 
fragments of objects made of steel, like the manufactured steel 
of this earth, have fallen to this earth, and are now in collections 
of meteorites. There is a story in a book that is not very ac¬ 
cessible to us, because it can’t be found along with C. R., or 
Eng. Mec., or L’Astro., of tablets of stone that were once upon 
a time fired to this earth. It may be that inhabitants of this 
earth have been receiving instructions ever since, engravings ar¬ 
riving very badly damaged, however. 


158 


NEW LANDS 


I have data upon repeating appearances, said to have been 
“auroral,” in a local sky. If they were auroral, repetitions at 
regular intervals and so localized are challengers to the most reso¬ 
lute of explainers. If they were of extra-mundane origin, they 
indicate that this earth is stationary. The regularity is suggestive 
of signalling. For instance—a light in the sky of Lyons, N. Y., 
Dec. 9, 1891, Jan. 5, Feb. 2, Feb. 29, March 27, April 23, 1892. 
In the Scientific American, May 7, 1892, Dr. M. A. Veeder writes 
that, from Dec. 9, 1891, to April 23, 1892, there had been a 
bright light that he calls “auroral,” in the sky of Lyons, every 27th 
night. He associates the lights with the sun’s synodic period, and 
says that upon each of the days preceding a nocturnal display, 
there had been a disturbance in the sun. How a disturbance in 
the sun could, at night, sun somewhere near the antipodes of 
Lyons, N. Y., so localize its effects, one can’t clear up. In Nature, 
46-29, Dr. Veeder associates the phenomena with the synodic 
period of the sun, but he says that this period is of 27 days, 6 
hours, and 47 minutes, noting that this period is inconsistent with 
the phenomena at Lyons, making more than a day’s difference in 
the time of his records. This precise determination is more of 
the “exact science” that is driving some of us away from refine¬ 
ments into hoping for caves. Different parts of the sun move at 
different rates: I have read of sun spots that moved diagonally 
across the sun. 

In Nature, 15-451, a correspondent writes that, at 8.55, p. m., 
he saw a large red star in Serpens, where he had never seen such 
an appearance before—Gunnersbury, March 17, 1877. Ten min¬ 
utes later, the object increased and decreased several times, flashing 
like the revolving light of a lighthouse, then disappearing. This 
correspondent writes that, about 10 p. m., he saw a great meteor. 
He suggests no relation between the two appearances, but there 
may have been relation, and there may be indication of some¬ 
thing that was stationary at least one hour over Gunnersbury, be¬ 
cause the object said to have been a “meteor” was first seen at 
Gunnersbury. In the Observatory, 1-20, Capt. Tupman writes 
that, at 9.57 o’clock, a great meteor was seen first at Frome, Tet- 
bury, and Gunnersbury. The red object might not have been in 


NEW LANDS 


159 


the local sky of Gunnersbury; might have been in the constella¬ 
tion Serpens, unseen in all the rest of the world. 

There is a great field of records of “meteors” that, with no 
parallax, or with little parallax, or with little parallax that may 
be accounted for by supposing that observations were not quite 
simultaneous, have been seen to come as if from a star or from 
a planet, and that may have come from such points, indicating 
that they are not far away. For instance, Rept. B. A., 1879-77 
—the great meteor of Sept. 5, 1868. It was seen, at Zurich, 
Switzerland, to come from a point near Jupiter; at Tremont, 
France, origin was so close to Jupiter that this object and the 
planet were seen in the same telescopic field; at Bergamo, Italy, 
it was seen five or six degrees from Jupiter. Zurich is about 
140 miles from Bergamo, and Tremont is farther from Zurich 
and Bergamo than that. 

So there are data that indicate that objects have come to this 
earth from planets or from stars, enforcing our idea that the re¬ 
motest planet is not so far from this earth as the moon is said, 
conventionally, to be; and that the stars, all equi-distant from 
this earth might be reached by travelling from this earth. One 
notices that I always conclude that, if phenomena repeatedly oc¬ 
cur in one local sky of this earth, their origin is traceable to a 
fixed place over a stationary earth. The fixed place over this 
earth is indicated, but that fixed place—island of space, foreign 
coast, whatever it may be—may be conceived of as accompanying 
this earth in its rotations and revolutions around the sun. Ac¬ 
cepting that nothing much is known of gravitation; that gravi¬ 
tational astronomy is a myth; that attraction may extend but a 
few miles around this earth, if I can think of something hanging 
unsupported in space, I always think of an island, say, over 
Birmingham, or Irkutsk, or Comrie, as soon flying off by the cen¬ 
trifugal force of a rotating earth, or as being soon left behind 
in a rush around the sun. Nevertheless there is good room for 
discussion here. But when it comes to other orders of data, I 
find one convergence toward the explanation that this earth is 
stationary. But the subject is supposed to be sacred. One must 
not think that this earth is stationary. One must not investigate. 


160 


NEW LANDS 


To think upon this subject, except as one is told to think, is, or 
seems to be considered, impious. 

But how can one account for an earth that moves? 

By thinking that something started it and that nothing ever 
stopped it. 

Earth that doesn’t move? 

That nothing ever started it. 

Some more sacrilege. 


CHAPTER FOURTEEN 


T F a grasshopper could hop on a cannon ball, passing overhead, 
A I could conceive, perhaps, how something, from outer space, 
could flit to a moving earth, explore a while, and then hop off. 

But suppose we have to accept that there have been instances 
of just such enterprise and agility, relatively to the planet Venus. 
Irrespective of our notion that it may be that sometimes a vessel 
sails to this earth from Venus and returns, there are striking 
data indicating that, whether conceivable or not, luminous ob¬ 
jects have appeared from somewhere, or presumably from outer 
space, and have been seen temporarily suspended over the planet 
Venus. This is in accord with our indications that there are re¬ 
gions in the sky suspended over and near this earth. It looks bad 
for our inference that this earth is stationary, but it is the sup¬ 
posed rotary motion of this earth more than the supposed orbital 
motion that seems to us would dislodge such neighboring bodies; 
and all astronomers, except those who say that Venus rotates in 
about 24 hours, say that Venus rotates in about 224 days, a veloc¬ 
ity that would generate little centrifugal force. 

I have a note upon a determined luminosity that was bent upon 
Saturn, as its objective. In the English Mechanic, 63-496, a 
correspondent writes that, upon July 13, 1896, he saw, through 
his telescope, from 10 until after 11.15, p. M., after which the 
planet was too near the horizon for good seeing, a luminous object 
moving near Saturn. He saw it pass several small stars. “It was 
certainly going toward Saturn at a good rate.” There may be 
swifts of the sky that can board planets. If they can swoop on 
and off an earth moving at a rate of 19 miles a second, disregard¬ 
ing rotation, because entrance at a pole may be thought of, why, 
then, for all I know smaller things do ride on cannon balls. Of 
course if our data that indicate that the supposed solar system, or 
the geo-system, is to an enormous degree smaller than is con- 

161 


162 


NEW LANDS 


ventionally taught be accepted, the orbital velocity of Venus is 
far cut down. 

About the last of August, 1873—Brussels; eight o’clock in the 
evening—rising above the horizon, into a clear sky, was seen a 
star-like object. It mounted higher and higher, until, about ten 
minutes later, it disappeared ( La Nature, 1873-239). It seems 
that this conspicuous object did appear in a local sky, and was 
therefore not far from this earth. If it were not a fire-balloon, one 
supposes that it did come from outer space, and then returned. 

Perhaps a similar thing that visited the moon, and was then 
seen sailing away—in the Astronomical Register, 23-205, Prof. 
Schafarik, of Prague, writes that upon April 24, 1874, he saw 
“an object of so peculiar a nature that I do not know what to 
make of it.” He saw a dazzling white object slowly traversing 
the disc of the moon. He had not seen it approaching the moon. 
He watched it after it left the moon. Sept. 27, 1881—South 
Africa—an object that was seen near the moon, by Col. Mark- 
wick—like a comet but moving rapidly (Jour. Liverpool Astro. 
Soc., 7-117). 

Our chief interest is in objects, like ships, that have “boarded” 
this moving earth with the agility of a Columbus who could dodge 
a San Salvador and throw out an anchor to an American coast 
screeching past him at a rate of 19 miles a second, or in objects 
that have come as close as atmospheric conditions, or unknown 
conditions, would permit to the bottom of a kind of stationary 
sea. We now graduate Capt. Noble to the extra-geographic fold. 
In Knowledge, 4-173, Capt. Noble writes that, at 10.35 o’clock, 
night of August 28, 1883, he saw in the sky something “like a 
new and most glorious comet.” First he saw something like 
the tail of a comet, or it was like a search light, according to Capt. 
Noble’s sketch of it in Knowledge. Then Capt. Noble saw the 
nucleus from which this light came. It was a brilliant object. 
Upon page 207, W. K. Bradgate writes that, at 12.40 A. M., Au¬ 
gust 29, at Liverpool, he saw an object like the planet Jupiter, a 
ray of light emanating from it. Upon the nights of Sept. 11 and 
13, Prof. Swift saw, at Rochester, N. Y., an unknown object like 
a comet, perhaps in the local sky of Rochester, inasmuch as it 
was reported from nowhere else ( Observatory, 6-345). In 


NEW LANDS 


163 


Knowledge, 4-219, Mrs. Harbin writes that, upon the night of 
Sept. 21, at Yeovil, she saw the same brilliant searchlight-like 
light that had been seen by Capt. Noble, but that it had disap¬ 
peared before she could turn her telescope upon it. And several 
months later (Nov., 1883) a similar object was seen obviously 
not far away, but in the local sky of Porto Rico and then of Ohio 
(Amer. Met . Jour., 1-110, and Set. Amer., 50-40, 97). It may 
be better not to say at this time that we have data for thinking 
that a vessel carrying something like a searchlight, visited this 
earth, and explored for several months over regions as far apart 
as England and Porto Rico. Just at present it is enough to record 
that something that was presumably not a fire-balloon appeared in 
the sky of England, close to this earth, if seen nowhere else, and 
in two hours traversed the distance of about 200 miles between 
Sussex and Liverpool. 

Aug. 22, 1885—Saigon, Cochin-China—according to Lieut. 
Reveillere, of the vessel Guiberteau —object like a magnificent red 
star, but larger than the planet Venus—it moved no faster than 
a cloud in a moderate wind; observed 7 or 8 minutes, then dis¬ 
appearing behind clouds (C. R., 101-680). 

In this book it is my frustrated desire to subordinate the theme 
of this earth’s stationariness. My subject is New Lands—things, 
objects, beings that are, or may be, the data of coming expan¬ 
sions— 

But the stationariness of this earth can not be subordinated. 
It is crucial. 

Again—there is no use discussing possible explorations beyond 
this earth, if this earth moves at a rate of 19 miles a second, or 
19 miles a minute. 

As to voyagers who may come to or near this earth from other 
planets—how could they leave and return to swiftly moving 
planets? According to our principles of Extra-geography, the 
planets move part of the time with the revolving stars, the re¬ 
motest planets remaining in, under, or near one constellation years 
at a time. Anything that could reach, and then travel from, a 
swiftly revolving constellation in the ecliptic could arrive at a 
stellar polar region, where, relatively to a central, stationary body, 
there is no motion. 


CHAPTER FIFTEEN 


I T may be that we now add to our sins the horse that swam in 
the sky. For all I know, we contribute to a wider biology. 
In the New York Times, July 8, 1878, is published a dispatch 
from Parkersburg, West Virginia: that, about July 1, 1878, three 
or four farmers had seen, in a cloudless sky, apparently half a 
mile high, “an opaque substance.” It looked like a white horse, 
“swimming in the clear atmosphere.” It is said to have been a 
mirage of a horse in some distant field. If so, it is interesting 
not only because it was opaque, but because of a selection or 
preference: the field itself was not miraged. 

Black bodies and the dark rabbles of the sky—and that riot¬ 
ing thing, from floating anarchies, have often spotted the sun. 
Then, by all that is compensatory, in the balances of existence, 
there are disciplined forces in space. In the Scientific American, 
44-291, it is said that, according to newspapers of Delaware, 
Maryland, and Virginia, figures had been seen in the sky in the 
latter part of September, and the first week in October, 1881, re¬ 
ports that “exhibited a mediaeval condition of intelligence scarcely 
less than marvellous.” The writer suggests that, though prob¬ 
ably something had been seen in the sky, it was only an aurora. 
Our own intelligence and that of astronomers and meteorologists 
and everybody else with whom we have had experience had better 
not be discussed, but the accusation of mediaevalism is something 
that we’re sensitive about, and we hasten to the Monthly Weather 
Review, and if that doesn’t give us a modern touch, I mistake the 
sound of it. Monthly Weather Review, Sept, and Oct., 1881— 
an auroral display in Maryland and New York, upon the 23rd 
of September; all other auroras in September far north of the 
three states in which it was said phenomena were seen. October 
—no auroras until the 18th; that one in the north. There was 
a mirage upon Sept. 23, but at Indianola; two instances in Octo¬ 
ber, but late in the month, and in northern states. 

164 


NEW LANDS 


165 


It is said, in the Scientific American, that, according to the 
Warrentown (Va.) Solid South, a number of persons had seen 
white-robed figures in the sky, at night. The story in the Rich¬ 
mond Dispatch is that many persons had seen, or had thought they 
had seen, an alarming sight in the sky, at night: a vast number 
of armed, uniformed soldiers drilling. Then a dispatch from 
Wilmington, Delaware—platoons of angels marching and counter¬ 
marching in the sky, their white robes and helmets gleaming. 
Similar accounts came from Laurel and Talbot. Several persons 
said that they had seen, in the sky, the figure of President Gar¬ 
field, who had died not long before. Our general acceptance is 
that all reports upon such phenomena are colored in terms of ap¬ 
pearances and subjects uppermost in minds. 

VAstronomie, 1888-392: 

That, about the first of August, 1888, near Warasdin, Hun¬ 
gary, several divisions of infantry, led by a chief, who waved a 
flaming sword, had been seen in the sky, three consecutive days, 
marching several hours a day. The writer in L’Astronomie says 
that in vain does one try to explain that this appearance was a 
mirage of terrestrial soldiers marching at a distance from Waras¬ 
din, because widespread publicity and investigation had disclosed 
no such soldiers. Even if there had been terrestrial soldiers near 
Warasdin repeating mirages localized would call for explana¬ 
tion. 

But that there may be space-armies, from which reflections or 
shadows or Brocken spectres are sometimes cast—a procession that 
crossed the sun: forms that moved, or that marched, sometimes 
four abreast; observation by M. Bruguiere, at Marseilles, April 
15 and 16, 1883 (U Astro., 5-70). An army that was watched, 
forty minutes, by M. Jacquot, Aug. 30, 1886 (LAstro., 1886-71) 
—things or beings that seemed to march and to counter-march: all 
that moved in the same direction, moved in parallel lines. In 
UAnnee Scientifique, 29-8, there is an account of observations by 
M. Trouvelot, Aug. 29, 1871. He saw objects, some round, some 
triangular, and some of complex forms. Then occurred some¬ 
thing that at least suggests that these things were not moving in 
the wind, nor sustained in space by the orbital forces of meteors; 
that each was depending upon its own powers of flight, and that 


166 


NEW LANDS 


an accident occurred to one of them. All of them, though most 
of the time moving with great rapidity, occasionally stopped, but 
then one of them fell toward the earth, and the indications are 
that it was a heavy body, and had not been sustained by the 
wind, which would scarcely suddenly desert one of its flotsam 
and continue to sustain all the others. The thing fell, oscillating 
from side to side like a disc falling through water. 

New York Sun, March 16, 1890—that, at 4 o’clock, in the 
afternoon of March 12th, in the sky of Ashland, Ohio, was seen 
a representation of a large, unknown city. By some persons it was 
supposed to be a mirage of the town of Mansfield, thirty miles 
away; other observers thought that they recognized Sandusky, 
sixty miles away. “The more superstitious declared that it was 
a vision of the New Jerusalem.” 

May have been a revelation of heaven, and for all I know heaven 
may resemble Sandusky, and those of us who have no desire to 
go to Sandusky may ponder that point, but our own expression is 
that things have been pictured in the sky, and have not been traced 
to terrestrial origins, but have been interpreted always in local 
terms. Probably a living thing in the sky—seen by farmers—a 
horse. Other things, or far-refracted images, or shadows—and 
they were supposed to be vast lions or soldiers or angels, all ac¬ 
cording to preconceived ideas. Representations that have been 
seen in India—Hindoo costumes described upon them. Suppose 
that, in the afternoon of January 17, 1892, there was a battle in 
the sky of Montana—we know just about in what terms the de¬ 
scription would be published. Brooklyn Eagle, Jan. 18, 1892— 
a mirage in the sky of Lewiston, Montana—Indians and hunters 
alternately charging and retreating. The Indians were in superior 
numbers and captured the hunters. Then details—hunters tied 
to stakes; the piling of faggots; etc. “So far as could be ascer¬ 
tained last night, the Indians on the reservations are peaceable.” 
I think that we’re peaceable enough, but, unless the astronomers 
can put us on reservations, where we’ll work out expressions in 
beads and wampum instead of data, we’ll have to carry on a con¬ 
flict with the vacant minds to which appear mirages of their own 
emptiness in the sometimes swarming skies. 

Altogether there are many data indicating that vessels and liv- 


NEW LANDS 


167 


ing things of space do come close to this earth, but there is 
absence of data of beings that have ever landed upon this earth, 
unless someone will take up the idea that Kaspar Hauser, for in¬ 
stance, came to this earth from some other physical world. 
Whether spacarians have ever dredged down here or not, or 
“sniped” down here, pouncing, assailing, either wantonly, or in 
the interests of their sciences, there are data of seeming seizures 
and attacks from somewhere, and I have strong objections against 
lugging in the fourth dimension, because then I am no better off, 
wondering what the fifth and sixth are like. 

In La Nature, 1888-2-66, M. Adrian Arcelin writes that, 
while excavating near de Solutre, in August, 1878, upon a day, 
described as superbe, sky clear to a degree said to have been par- 
faitement, several dozen sheets of wrapping paper upon the ground 
suddenly rose. Nearby were a dozen men, and not one of them 
had felt a trace of wind. A strong force had seized upon these 
conspicuous objects, touching nothing else. According to M. Ar¬ 
celin, the dust on the ground under and around was not dis¬ 
turbed. The sheets of paper continued upward, and disappeared 
in the sky. 

A powerful force that swooped upon a fishing vessel, raising 
it so far that when it fell back it sank—see London Times, Sept. 
24, 1875. A quarter of a mile away were other vessels, from 
which set out rescuers to the sailors who had been thrown into 
the sea. There was no wind: the rescuers could not use sails, but 
had to row their boats. 

Upon Oct. 2, 1875, a man was trundling a cart from Schaff- 
hausen, near Beringen, Germany. His right arm was perforated 
from front to back, as if by a musket ball {Pop. Sci., 15-566). 
This man had two companions. He had heard a whirring sound, 
but his companions had heard nothing. At one side of the 
road there were laborers in a field, but they were not within gun¬ 
shot distance. Whatever the missile may have been, it was urn 
findable. 

La Nature, 1879-1-166, quotes the Courrier des Ardennes as 
to an occurrence in the Commune Signy-le-Pettit, Easter Sunday, 
1879—a conspicuous, isolated house—suddenly its slate roof shot 
into the air, and then fell to the ground. There had not been 


168 


NEW LANDS 


a trace of wind. The writer of the account says that the force, 
which he calls a trouble inoui had so singled out this house that 
nothing in its surroundings beyond a distance of thirty feet had 
been disturbed. 

Scientific American, July 10, 1880—that, according to the 
Plaindealer, of East Kent, Ontario, two citizens of East Kent were 
in a field, and heard a loud report. They saw stones shooting 
upward from a field. They examined the spot, which was about 
16 feet in diameter, finding nothing to suggest an explanation of 
the occurrence. It is said that there had been neither a whirlwind 
nor anything else by which to explain. 

It may be that witnesses have seen human beings dragged from 
our own existence either into the objectionable fourth dimension, 
perhaps then sifting into the fifth, or up to the sky by some ex¬ 
ploring thing. I have data, but they are from the records of 
psychic research. For instance, a man has been seen walking 
along a road—sudden disappearance. Explanation—that he was 
not a living human being, but an apparition that had disappeared. 
I have not been able to develop such data, finding, for instance, 
that someone in the neighborhood had been reported missing; but 
it may be that we can find material in our own field. 

Upon December 10, 1881, Walter Powell and two companions 
ascended from Bath in the Government balloon Saladin (Valen¬ 
tine and Tomlinson, Travels in Space, p. 227). The balloon de¬ 
scended at Bridport, coast of the English Channel. Two of the 
aeronauts got out, but the balloon, with Powell in it, shot upward. 
There was a report that the balloon had been seen to fall in the 
English Channel, near Bridport, but according to Capt. Temple, 
one of Powell’s companions, probably something thrown from 
the balloon had been seen to fall. 

A balloon is lost near or over the sea. If it should fall into 
the sea it would probably float and for considerable time be a con¬ 
spicuous object; nevertheless the disappearance of a balloon last 
seen over the English Channel, can not, without other circum¬ 
stances, be considered very mysterious. Now one expects to 
learn of reports from many places of supposed balloons that had 
been seen. But the extraordinary circumstance is that reports 


NEW LANDS 


169 


came in upon a luminous object that was seen in the sky at the 
time that this balloon disappeared. In the London Times, it 
is said that a luminous object had been seen, evening of the 13th, 
moving in various directions in the sky near Cherbourg. It is 
said that upon the night of the 16th three customhouse guards, at 
Laredo, Spain, had seen something like a balloon in the sky, and 
had climbed a mountain in order to see it better, but that it had 
shot out sparks and had disappeared—and had been reported from 
Bilbao, Spain, the next day. In the Morning Post, it is said that 
this luminous display was the chief feature; that it was this 
sparkling that had made the object visible. In the Standard, 
Dec. 16, is an account of something that was seen in the sky, 
five o’clock, morning of Dec. 15, by Capt. Me. Bain, of the 
steamship Countess of Aberdeen, off the coast of Scotland, 25 miles 
from Montrose. Through glasses, the object seemed to be a 
light attached to something thought to be the car of a balloon, in¬ 
creasing and decreasing in size—a large light—“as large as 
the light at Girdleness.” It moved in a direction opposite to that 
of the wind, though possibly with wind of an upper stratum. It 
was visible half an hour, and when it finally disappeared, was 
moving toward Bervie, a town on the Scottish coast about 12 
miles north of Montrose. In the Morning Post it is said that 
the explanation is simple: that someone in Monfreith, 8 miles 
from Dundee, had, late in the evening of the 15th, sent up a 
fire-balloon, “which had been carried along the coast by a gentle 
breeze, and, after burning all night, extinguished and collapsed 
off Montrose, early on Thursday morning (16th).” This story of 
a balloon that wafted to Montrose, and that was evidently traced 
until it collapsed near Montrose does not so simply explain an 
object that was seen 25 miles from Montrose. In the Standard, 
Dec. 19, it is said that two bright lights were seen over Dartmouth 
Harbor, upon the 11th. 

Walter Powell was Member of Parliament for Malmesbury, and 
had many friends, some of whom started immediately to search. 
His relatives offered a reward. A steamboat searched the Chan¬ 
nel, and did not give up until the 13th; fishing vessels kept on 
searching. A “sweeping expedition” was organized, and the 


170 


NEW LANDS 


coast guard was doubled, searching the shore for wreckage, but not 
a fragment of the balloon, nor from the balloon, except a ther¬ 
mometer in a bag, was found. 

In V Astronomie, 1886-312, Prof. Paroisse, of the College Bar- 
sur-Aube, quotes two witnesses of a curieux phenomene that oc¬ 
curred in a garden of the College, May, 22, 1886—cloudless sky; 
wind tres faible. Within a small circle in the garden were some 
baskets and ashes and a window frame that weighed sixty kilo¬ 
grammes. These things suddenly rose from the ground. At a 
height of about forty feet, they remained suspended several min¬ 
utes, then falling back to the place from which they had risen. 
Not a thing outside this small circle had been touched by the 
seizure. The witnesses said that they had felt no disturbance in 
the air. 

Scientific American, 56-65—that in June, 1886, according 
to the London Times, “a well-known official” was entering Pall 
Mall, when he felt a violent blow on the shoulder and heard 
a hissing sound. There was no one in sight except a distant 
policeman. At home, he found that the nap of his coat looked as 
if a hot wire had been pressed against the cloth, in a long, straight 
line. No missile was found, but it was thought that something of 
a meteoritic nature had struck him. 

Charleston News and Courier, Nov. 25, 1886—that, at Edina, 
Mo., Nov. 23, a man and his three sons were pulling corn on a 
farm. Nothing is said of meteorologic conditions, and, for all 
I know, they may have been pulling com in a violent thunder 
storm. Something that is said to have been lightning flashed 
from the sky. The man was slightly injured, one son killed, the 
other seriously injured—the third had disappeared. “What has 
become of him is not known, but it is supposed that he was 
blinded or crazed by the shock, and wandered away.” 

Brooklyn Eagle, March 17, 1891—that, at Wilkesbarre, Pa., 
March 16th, two men were “lifted bodily and carried considerable 
distance in a whirlwind.” It was a powerful force, but nothing 
else was affected by it. Upon the same day, there was an occur¬ 
rence in Brooklyn. In the New York Times, March 17, 1891, 
it is said that two men, Smith Morehouse, of Orange Co., N. Y., 
and William Owen, of Sussex Co., N. J., were walking in Van- 


NEW LANDS 


171 


derbilt Avenue, Brooklyn, about 2 o’clock, afternoon of the 16th, 
when a terrific explosion occurred close to the head of Morehouse, 
injuring him and stunning Owen, the flash momentarily blind¬ 
ing both. Morehouse’s face was covered with marks like powder- 
marks, and his tongue was pierced. With no one else to accuse, 
the police arrested Owen, but held him upon the technical charge 
of intoxication. Morehouse was taken to a hospital, where a 
splinter of metal, considered either brass or copper, but not a 
fragment of a cartridge, was removed from his tongue. No other 
material could be found, though an object of considerable size 
had exploded. Morehouse’s hat had been perforated in six places 
by unfindable substances. According to witnesses there had been 
no one within a hundred feet of the men. One witness had seen 
the flash before the explosion, but could not say whether it had 
been from something falling or not. In the Brooklyn Eagle , 
March 17, 1891, it is said that neither of the men had a weapon 
of any kind, and that there had been no disagreement between 
them. According to a witness, they had been under observation at 
the time of the explosion, her attention having been attracted by 
their rustic appearance. 

There is an interesting merging here of the findable and the un¬ 
findable. I suppose that no one will suppose that someone threw 
a bomb at these men. But enough substance was found to ex¬ 
clude the notion of “lightning from a clear sky.” Something of 
a meteoritic nature seems excluded. 


CHAPTER SIXTEEN 


O UT from a round, red planet, a little white shaft—a fairy’s 
arrow shot into ail apple. June 10, 1892—a light like a 
little searchlight, projecting from the limb of Mars. Upon July 
11 and 13, it was seen again, by Campbell and Hussey ( Nature, 
50-500). 

Aug. 3, 1892—climacteric opposition of Mars. 

Upon August 12, 1892, flashes were seen by many persons, in 
the sky of England. See Eng. Mec., vol. 56. At Manchester, so 
like signals were they, or so unlike anything commonly known as 
“auroral” were they, that Albert Buss mistook them for flashes 
from a lighthouse. They were seen at Dewsbury; described by 
a correspondent to the English Mechanic, who wrote: “I have 
never seen such an appearance of an aurora.” “Rapid flashes” 
reported from Loughborough. 

A shining triangle in a dark circle. 

In L’Astronomie, 1888-75, Dr. Klein publishes an account of 
de Speissen’s observation of Nov. 23, 1887—a luminous triangle 
on the floor of Plato. Dr. Klein says it was an effect of sun- 
light. 

In this period, there were in cities of the United States, some 
of the most astonishing effects at night, in the history of this 
earth. If Rigel should run for the Presidency of Orion, and if 
the stars in the great nebula should start to march, there would 
be a spectacle like those that Grover Cleveland called forth in 
the United States, in this period. 

So then—at least conceivably—something similar upon the 
moon. Flakes of light moving toward Plato, this night of Nov. 
23, 1887, from all the other craters of the moon; a blizzard of 
shining points gathering into light-drifts in Plato; then the deni¬ 
zens of Aristarchus and of Kepler, and dwellers from the lunar 
Alps, each raising his torch, marching upon a triangular path, 

172 


NEW LANDS 


173 


making the triangle shine in the dark—conceivably. Other for¬ 
mations have been seen in Plato, but, according to my records, this 
symbol that shone in the dark had never been seen before, and 
has not been seen since. 

About two years later—a demonstration of a more exclusive 
kind—assemblage of all the undertakers of the moon. They stood 
in a circular formation, surrounded by virgins in their night¬ 
gowns and in nightgowns as nightgowns should be. An ap¬ 
pearance in Plinius, Sept. 13, 1889, was reported by Prof. Thury, 
of Geneva—a black spot with an “intensely white” border. 

March 30, 1889 a black spot that was seen for the first time, 
by Gaudibert, near the center of Copernicus {UAstro., 1890-235). 
May 11, 1889 an object as black as ink upon a rampart of 
Gassendi (L Astro., 1889-275). It had never been reported 
before, at the time of the next lunation, it was not seen again. 
March 30, 1889—a new black spot in Plinius (U Astro. 1890- 
187). 

The star-like light of Aristarchus—it is a long time since 
latest preceding appearance (May 7, 1867). Then it can not be 
attributed to commonplace lunar circumstances. The light was 
seen, Nov. 7, 1891, by M. d’Adjuda, of the Observatory of Lis¬ 
bon—“a very distinct, luminous point” (L’Astro., 11-33). 

Upon April 1, 1893, a shaft of light was seen projecting from 
the moon, by M. de Moraes, in the Azores. A similar appear¬ 
ance was seen, Sept. 25, 1893, at Paris, by Mr. Gaboreau 
(V Astro., 13-34). 

Another association like that of 1884—in the English Mechanic, 
55-310, a correspondent writes that, upon May 6, 1892, he saw 
a shining point (not polar) upon Venus. Upon the 13th of 
August, 1892, the same object—conceivably—was seen at a short 
distance from Venus—an unknown, luminous object, like a star 
of the 7th magnitude that was seen close to Venus, by Prof. 
Barnard (^4^. Nach., no. 4106). 

Upon August 24, 1895, in the period of primary maximum 
brilliance of Venus, a luminous object, it is said, was seen in the 
sky, in day time, by someone in Donegal, Ireland. Upon this 
day, according to the Scientific American, 73-374, a boy, Robert 


174 


NEW LANDS 


Alcorn, saw a xarge luminous object falling from the sky. It ex¬ 
ploded near him. The boy’s experience was like Smith More¬ 
house’s. He put his hands over his face: there was a second ex¬ 
plosion, shattering his fingers. According to Prof. George M. 
Minchin no substance of the object that had exploded could be 
found. Whether there be relation or not, something was seen in 
the sky of England a week later. In the London Times, Sept. 4, 
1895, Dr. J. A. H. Murray writes that, at Oxford, a few minutes 
before 8 p. m., August 31, 1895, he saw in the sky a luminous 
object, considerably larger than Venus at greater brilliance, emerge 
from behind tree tops, and sail slowly eastward. It moved as if 
driven in a strong wind, and disappeared behind other trees. 
“The fact that it so perceptibly grew fainter as it receded seems 
to imply that it was not at a great elevation, and so favors a ter¬ 
restrial origin, though I am unable to conceive how anything arti¬ 
ficial could have presented the same appearance.” In the Times, 
of the 6th, someone who had read Dr. Murray’s letter says that, 
about the same time, same evening, he, in London, had seen the 
same object moving eastward so slowly that he had thought it 
might be a fire balloon from a neighboring park. Another cor¬ 
respondent, who had not read Dr. Murray’s letter, his own dated 
Sept. 3, writes from a place not stated that about 8.20 p. m., Aug. 
31, he had seen a star-like object, moving eastward, remaining 
in sight four or five minutes. Then someone who, about 8 p. m., 
same evening, while driving to the Scarborough station, had 
seen “a large shooting star,” astonishing him, because of its 
leisurely rate, so different from the velocity of the ordinary “shoot¬ 
ing star.” There are two other accounts of objects that were seen 
in the sky, at Bath and at Ramsgate, but not about this time, 
and I have looked them up in local newspapers, finding that they 
were probably meteors. 

In the Oxford Times, Sept. 7, Dr. Murray’s letter to the Lon¬ 
don Times is reprinted, with this comment—“We would suggest 
to the learned doctor that the supposed meteor was one of the fire- 
balloons let off with the allotments show.” 

Let it be that when allotments are shown, balloons are always 
sent up, and that this Editor did not merely have a notion to 
this effect. Our data are concerned with an object that was 


NEW LANDS 


175 


seen, at about the same time, at Oxford, about 50 miles south 
east of Oxford, and about 170 miles northeast of Oxford, with 
a fourth observation that we can not place. 

And, in broader terms, our data are concerned with a general 
expression that objects like ships have been seen to sail close to 
this earth at times when the planet Venus is nearest this earth. 
Sept. 18, 1895—inferior conjunction of Venus. 

Still in the same period, there were, in London, two occur¬ 
rences perhaps like that at Donegal. London Morning Post, Nov. 
16, 1895 that, at noon, Nov. 15, an “alarming explosion’’ oc¬ 
curred somewhere near Fenchurch Street, London. No damage 
was done; no trace could be found of anything that had exploded. 
An hour later, near the Mansion House, which is not far from 
Fenchurch Street, occurred a still more violent explosion. The 
streets filled with persons who had run from buildings, and there 
was investigation, but not a trace could be found of anything 
that had exploded. It is said that somebody saw “something fall¬ 
ing.” However, the deadly explainers, usually astronomers, but 
this time policemen, haunt or arrest us. In the Daily News, 
though it is not said that a trace of anything that had exploded 
had been found, it is said that the explanation by the police 
was that somebody had mischievously placed in the streets fog- 
signals, which had been exploded by passing vehicles. 

Observation by Muller, of Nymegen, Holland—an unknown 
luminous object that, about three weeks later, was seen near Venus 
(Monthly Notices, R. A. S., 52-276). 

Upon the 28th of April, 1897, Venus was in inferior conjunc¬ 
tion. In Popular Astronomy, 5-55, it is said that many persons 
had written to the Editor, telling of “airships” that had been seen, 
about this time. The Editor writes that some of the observations 
were probably upon the planet Venus, but that others probably 
related to toy balloons, “which were provided with various colored 
lights.” 

The first group of our data, I take from dispatches to the New 
York Sun, April 2, 11, 16, 18. First of April—“the mysterious 
light” in the sky of Kansas City—something like a powerful 
searchlight. “It was directed toward the earth, travelling east at 
a rate of sixty miles an hour.” About a week later, something 


176 


NEW LANDS 


was seen in Chicago. “Chicago’s alleged airship is believed to be 
a myth, in spite of the fact that a great many persons say that they 
have seen the mysterious night-wanderer. A crowd gazed at 
strange lights, from the top of a downtown skyscraper, and Evans¬ 
ton students declare they saw the swaying red and green lights.” 
April 16—reported from Benton, Texas, but this time as a dark 
object that passed across the moon. Reports from other towns in 
Texas: Fort Worth, Dallas, Marshall, Ennis, and Beaumont— 
“It was shaped like a Mexican cigar, large in the middle, and 
small at both ends, with great wings, resembling those of an enor¬ 
mous butterfly. It was brilliantly illuminated by the rays of two 
great searchlights, and was sailing in a southeasterly direction, 
with the velocity of the wind, presenting a magnificent appear¬ 
ance.” 

New York Herald, April 11—that, at Chicago, night of April 
9-10, “until two o’clock in the morning, thousands of amazed 
spectators declared that the lights seen in the northwest were those 
of an airship, or some floating object, miles above the earth. . . . 
Some declare they saw two cigar-shaped objects and great wings.” 
It is said that a white light, a red light, and a green light had 
been seen. 

There does seem to be an association between this object and the 
planet Venus, which upon this night was less than three weeks 
from nearest approach to this earth. Nevertheless this object could 
not have been Venus, which had set hours earlier. Prof. Hough, 
of the Northwestern University, is quoted—that the people had 
mistaken the star Alpha Orionis for an airship. Prof. Hough ex¬ 
plains that astronomeric effects may have given a changing red 
and green appearance to this star. Alpha Orionis as a northern 
star is some more astronomy by the astronomers who teach astron¬ 
omy daytimes and then relax when night comes. That atmos¬ 
pheric conditions could pick out this one star and not affect other 
brilliant stars in Orion is more astronomy. At any rate the 
standardized explanation that the thing was Venus disappears. 

There were other explainers—someone who said that he knew 
of an airship (terrestrial one) that had sailed from San Francisco, 
and had reached Chicago. 

Herald, April 12—said that the object had been photographed 


NEW LANDS 


177 


in Chicago: “a cigar-shaped, silken bag,” with a framework— 
other explanations and identifications, not one of them applying to 
this object, if be accepted that it was seen in places as far apart as 
Illinois and Texas. It is said that, upon March 29th, the thing 
had been seen in Omaha, as a bright light sailing to the north¬ 
west, and that, for a few moments, upon the following night, it 
had been seen in Denver. It is said that, upon the night of the 
9th, despatches had bombarded the newspaper offices of Chicago, 
from many places in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, and Wis¬ 
consin. 

“Prof. George Hough maintains that the object seen is Alpha 
Orionis.” 

April 14—story, veritable observation, yarn, hoax—despatch 
from Carlensville, Ill.—that upon the afternoon of the 10th, the 
airship had alighted upon a farm, but had sailed away when 
approached—“cigar-shaped, with wings, and a canopy on 
top.” 

April 15—shower of telegrams—development of jokers and ex¬ 
plainers—thing identified as an airship invented by someone in 
Dodge City, Kansas; identified as an airship invented by someone 
in Brule, Wisconsin—stories of letters found on farms, purporting 
to have been dropped by the unknown aeronauts (terrestrial 
ones)—jokers in various towns, sending up balloons with lights 
attached—one laborious joker who rigged up something that looked 
like an airship and put it in a vacant lot and told that it had 
fallen there—yam or observation, upon a “queer-looking boat” 
that had been seen to rise from the water in Lake Erie—continued 
reports upon a moving object in the sky, and its red and green 
lights. 

Against such an alliance as this, between the jokers and the 
astronomers, I see small chance for our data. The chance is in 
the future. If, in April, 1897, extra-mundane voyagers did visit 
this earth, likely enough they will visit again, and then the alliance 
against the data may be guarded against. 

New York Herald , April 20—that, upon the 19th, about 9 P. M., 
at Sistersville, W. Va., a luminous object had approached the town 
from the northwest, flashing brillant red, white, and green lights. 
“An examination with strong glasses left an impression of a huge 


178 


NEW LANDS 


cone-shaped arrangement 180 feet long, with large fins on either 
side.” 

My own general impression: 

Night of October 12, 1492—if I have that right. Some night 
in October, 1492, and savages upon an island-beach are gazing 
out at lights that they had never seen before. The indications are 
that voyagers from some other world are nearby. But the wise men 
explain. One of the most nearly sure expressions in this book is 
upon how they explain. They explain in terms of the familiar. 
For instance, after all that is spiritual in a fish passes away, the 
rest of him begins to shine nights. So there are three big, old, 
dead things out in the water— 


CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 


HERE have been published several observations upon a 



i signal-like regularity of the Barisal Guns, which, because 
unaccompanied by phenomena that could be considered seismic, 
may have been detonations in the sky, and which, because, ac¬ 
cording to some hearers, they seemed to come from the sky, may 
have come from some region stationary in the local sky of Barisal. 
In Nature, 61-127, appears a report by Henry S. Schurr, who 
investigated the sounds in the years 1890-1891: 

“These Guns are always heard in triplets, i. e., three guns are 
always heard, one after the other, at regular intervals, and, though 
several guns may be heard, the number is always three or a mul¬ 
tiple of three. Then the interval between the three is always con¬ 
stant, i. e., the interval between the first and the second is the 
same as the interval between the second and the third, and this 
interval is usually three seconds, though I have heard it up to ten 
seconds. The interval, however, between the triplets varies, and 
varies largely, from a few seconds up to hours and days. Some¬ 
times only one series of triplets is heard in a day; at others the 
triplets follow with great regularity, and I have counted as many 
as forty-five of them, one after the other, without pause.” 

In vols. 16 and 17, del et Terre, M. Van den Broeck pub¬ 
lished a series of papers upon the mysterious sounds that had 
been heard in Belgium. 

July, 1892—heard near Bree, by Dr. Raemaekers, of Antwerp 
—detonations at regular intervals of about 12 seconds, repeated 
about 20 times. 

Aug. 5, 1892—near Dunkirk, by Prof. Gerard, of Brussels— 
four reports like sounds of cannons. 

Aug. 17, 1893—between Ostend and Ramsgate, by Prof. Gerard 
—a series of distinct explosions—state of the sky giving no reason 
to think that they were meteorological manifestations. 


180 


NEW LANDS 


Sept. 5, 1893—at Middelkirke—loud sounds of remarkable in¬ 
tensity. 

Sept. 8, 1893—English Channel near Dover—by Prof. Gerard 
—an explosive sound. 

In del et Terre, 16-485, M. Van den Broeck records an experi¬ 
ence of his own. Upon June 25, 1894, at Louvain, he had heard 
detonations like discharges of artillery: he tabulates the intervals 
in a series of sounds. If there were signalling from some un¬ 
known region over Belgium, and not far from the surface of this 
earth, or from extra-mundane vessels, and if there were some¬ 
thing of the code-like, resembling the Morse alphabet, perhaps, in 
this series of sounds, there can be small hope of interpreting such 
limited material, but there may be suggestion to someone to record 
all sounds and their intervals and modulations, if, with greater 
duration, such phenomena should ever occur again. The inter¬ 
vals were four minutes and twenty-three minutes; then three min¬ 
utes, four, three quarters, three and three quarters, three quar¬ 
ters. 

Sept. 16, 1895—a triplet of detonations, heard by M. de Schry- 
vere, of Brussels. 

There were attempts to explain. Some of M. Van den Broeck’s 
correspondents thought that there had been firing from forts on 
the coast of England, and somebody thought that the phenomena 
should be attributed to gravitational effects of the moon. Upon 
Sept. 13, 1895, four shocks were felt and sounds heard at South¬ 
hampton: a series of three and then another ( Nature, 52-552); 
but I have no other notes upon sounds that were heard in Eng¬ 
land at this time, except the two explosions that were explained 
by the police of London. However, M. Van den Broeck says that 
Mr. Harmer, of Aldeburgh, Suffolk, had, about the first of No¬ 
vember, heard booming sounds that had been attributed to can¬ 
nonading at Harwich. Mr. Harmer had heard other sounds 
that had been attributed to cannonading somewhere else. He 
could not offer a definite opinion upon the first sounds, but had 
investigated the others, learning that the attribution was a mis¬ 
take. 

It was M. de Schryvere’s opinion that the triplet of detonations 
that he had heard was from vessels in the North Sea. But now, 


NEW LANDS 


181 


according to developments, the sounds of Belgium can not very 
well be attributed to terrestrial cannonading in or near 
Belgium: in del et Terre, 16-614, are quoted two artillery 
officers who had heard the sounds, but could not so trace them: 
one of these officers had heard a series of detonations with inter¬ 
vals of about two minutes. A variety of explanations was at¬ 
tempted, but in conventional terms, and if these localized, repeat¬ 
ing sounds did come from the sky, there’s nothing to it but a new 
variety of attempted explanations, and in most unconventional 
terms. There are recorded definite impressions that the sounds 
were in the sky: Prof. Peleseneer’s positivement aerien. In 
del et Terre, 17-14, M. Van den Broeck announced that Gen¬ 
eral Hennequin, of Brussels, had co-operated with him, and had 
sent enquiries to army officers and other persons, receiving thirty 
replies. Some of these correspondents had heard detonations at 
regular intervals. It is said that the sounds were like cannonad¬ 
ing, but not in one instance were the sounds traced to terrestrial 
gunfire. 

Jan. 24, 1896—a triplet of triplets—between 2.30 and 3.30, 
p. m. —by M. Overloop, of Middelkirke, Belgium—three series 
of detonations, each of three sounds. 

The sounds went on, but, after this occurrence, there seems 
to me to be little inducement to me to continue upon the subject. 
This is indication that from somewhere there has been signalling: 
from extra-mundane vessels to one another, or from some unknown 
region to this earth, as nearly final as we can hope to find. There 
are persons who will see nothing but a susceptibility to the mysti¬ 
cism of numbers in a feeling that there is significance in threes 
of threes. But, if there be attempt in some other world to attract 
attention upon this earth, it would have to be addressed to some 
kind of a state of mind that would feel significances. Let our 
three threes be as mystic as the eleven horns on Daniel’s fourth 
animal; if throughout nature like human nature there be only 
superstition as to such serialization, that superstition, for want 
of something more nearly intelligent, would be a susceptibility to 
which to appeal, and from which response might be expected. I 
think that a sense of mystic significance in the number three may 
be universal, because upon this earth it is general, appearing in 


182 


NEW LANDS 


theologies, in the balanced compositions of all the arts, in logi-» 
cal demonstrations, and in the indefinite feelings that are sup¬ 
posed to be superstitious. 

The sounds went on, as if there were experiments, or attempts 
to communicate by means of other regularizations and repetitions. 
Feb. 18, 1896—a series of more than 20 detonations, at intervals 
of 2 or 3 minutes, heard at Ostend, by M. Pulzeys, an engineer 
of Brussels. Four or five sounds were heard at Ostend by some¬ 
one else: repeated upon the 21st of Feb. Heard by M. Over¬ 
loop, at Ostend, April 6: detonations at 11.57.30 a. m., and at 
12.1.32 p. m. Heard the next day, by M. Overloop, at Blanken- 
berghe, at 2.35 and 2.51 p. m. 

The last occurrence recorded by M. Van den Broeck was upon 
the English Channel, May 23, 1896: detonations at 3.20 and 3.40 
p. m. I have no more data, as to this period, myself, but I have 
notes upon similar sounds, by no means so widely reported and 
commented upon, in France and Belgium about 15 years later. 
One notices that the old earthquake-explanation as to these sounds 
has not appeared. 

But there were other phenomena in England, in this period, and 
to considerable degree they were conventionally explained. They 
were not of the type of the Belgian phenomena, and, because mani¬ 
festations were seen and felt, as well as heard, they were ex¬ 
plained in terms of meteors and earthquakes. But in this double 
explanation, we meet a divided opposition, and no longer are we 
held back by the uncompromising attempt by exclusionist science 
to attribute all disturbances of this earth’s surface to a subter¬ 
ranean origin. The admission by Symons and Fordham that we 
have recorded, as to occurrences of 1887-89, has survived. 

The earliest of the accounts that I have read of the quakes in 
the general region of Worcester and Hereford (London Triangle) 
that associated with appearances in the sky, was published by 
two church wardens in the years 1661, as to occurrences of Octo¬ 
ber, 1661, and is entitled, A True and Perfect Relation of the 
Terrible Earthquake. It is said that monstrous flaming things 
were seen in the sky, and that phenomena below were interesting. 
We are told, “truly and perfectly,” that Mrs. Margaret Petmore 
fell in labor and brought forth three male offsprings all of whom 


NEW LANDS 


183 


had teeth and spoke at birth. Inasmuch as it is not recorded 
what the infants said, and whether in plain English or not, it 
is not so much an extraordinary birth such as, in one way or an¬ 
other, occurs from time to time, that affronts our conventional no¬ 
tions, as it is the idea that there could be relation between the 
abnormal in obstetrics and the unusual in terrestrics. The con¬ 
ventional scientist has just this reluctance toward considering 
shocks of this earth and phenomena in the sky at the same time. 
If he could accept with us that there often has been relation, 
the seeming discord would turn into a commonplace, but with us 
he would never again want to hear of extraordinary detonating 
meteors exploding only by coincidence over a part of this earth 
where an earthquake was occurring, or of concussions of this 
earth, time after time, in one small region, from meteors that, only 
by coincidence, happened to explode in one little local sky, time 
after time. Give up the idea that this earth moves, however, and 
coincidences many times repeated do not have to be lugged in. 

Our subject now is the supposed earthquake centering around 
Worcester and Hereford, Dec. 17, 1896; but there may have been 
related events, leading up to this climax, signifying long dura¬ 
tion of something in the sky that occasionally manifested relatively 
to this comer of the London Triangle. Mrs. Margaret Petmore 
was too sensational a person for our liking, at least in our colder 
and more nearly scientific moments, so we shall not date so far 
back as the time of her performance; but the so-called earthquakes 
of Oct. 6, 1863, and of Oct. 30, 1868, were in this region, and we 
had data for thinking that they were said to be earthquakes only 
because they could not be traced to terrestrial explosions. 

At 5.45 p. m., Nov. 2. 1893, a loud sound was heard at a place 
ten miles northeast of Worcester, and no shock was felt ( Nature, 
49-245); however at Worcester and in various parts of the west 
of England and in Wales a shock was felt. 

According to James G. Wood, writing in Symons' Met. Mag., 
29-8, at 9.30 p. m., Jan. 25, 1894, at Llanthomas and Clifford, 
towns less than 20 miles west of Hereford, a brilliant light was 
seen in the sky, an explosion was heard, and a quake was felt. 
Half an hour later, something else occurred: according to Denning 
{Nature, 49-325) it was in several places, near Hereford and Wor- 


184 


NEW LANDS 


cester, supposed to be an earthquake. But, at Stokesay Vicarage, 
Shropshire (Symons' Met. Mag., 29-8) was seen the same kind 
of an appearance as that which had been seen at Llanthomas and 
Clifford, half an hour before: an illumination so brilliant that 
for half a minute everything was almost as visible as by day- 
light. 

In the English Mechanic, 74-155, David Packer calls attention 
to “a strange meteoric light” that was seen in the sky, at Wor¬ 
cester, during the quake of Dec. 17, 1896. I should say that this 
was the severest shock felt in the British Isles, in the 19th century, 
with the exception of the shock of April 22, 1884, in the eastern 
point of the London Triangle. There was something in the sky. 
In Nature, 55-179, J. Lloyd Bozward writes that, at Worcester, 
a great light was seen in the sky, at the time of the shock, and 
that, in another town, “a great blaze” had been seen in the sky. 
In Symons' Met. Mag., 31-180, are recorded many observations 
upon lights that were seen in the sky. In an appendix to his 
book, The Hereford Earthquake of 1896, Dr. Charles Davison 
says that at the time of the quake (5.30 A. M.) there was a 
luminous object in the sky, and that it “traversed a large part of 
the disturbed area.” He says that it was a meteor, and an ex¬ 
traordinary meteor that lighted up the ground so that one could 
have picked up a pin. With the data so far considered, almost 
anyone would think that of course an object had exploded in the 
sky, shaking the earth underneath. Dr. Davison does not say 
this. He says that the meteor only happened to appear over a 
part of this earth where an earthquake was occurring, “by a 
strange coincidence.” 

Suppose that, with ordinary common sense, he had not lugged 
in his “strange coincidence,” and had written that of course the 
shock was concussion from an explosion in the sky— 

Shocks that had been felt before midnight, Dec. 17, and at 
1.30 or 1.45, 2, 3, 3.30, 4, 5, and 5.20, and then others at 5.40 
or 5.45 and at 6.15 o’clock—and were they, too, concussions, but 
fainter and from remoter explosions in the sky—and why not, if 
of course the great shock of 5.30 o’clock was from a great explo¬ 
sion in the sky—and by what multiplication of strangeness of co- 


NEW LANDS 


185 


incidence could detonating meteors, or explosions of any other 
kind, so localize in the one little sky of Worcester, if this earth 
be a moving earth—and how could their origin be otherwise than 
a fixed region nearby? 

In some minds it may be questionable that the earth could be 
so affected as it was at 5.30 a. m., Dec. 17, 1896, by an explosion 
in the sky. Upon Feb. 10, 1896, a tremendous explosion occurred 
in the sky of Madrid: throughout the city windows were smashed; 
a wall in the building occupied by the American Legation was 
thrown down. The people of Madrid rushed to the streets, and 
there was a panic in which many were injured. For five hours 
and a half a luminous cloud of debris hung over Madrid, and 
stones fell from the sky. 

Suppose, just at present, we disregard all the Worcester-Here- 
ford phenomena except those of Dec. 17, 1896. Draw a diagram, 
illustrating a stream of meteors pursuing this earth, now supposed 
to be rotating and revolving, for more than 400,000 miles in its 
orbit, and curving around gracefully and unerringly after the 
rotating earth, so as to explode precisely in this one little local 
sky and nowhere else. But we can’t think very reasonably even 
of a flock of birds flying after and so precisely pecking one spot 
on an apple thrown in the air by somebody. Another diagram— 
stationary earth—bombardment of any kind one chooses to think 
of—same point hit every time—thinkable. 

The phenomena associate with an opposition of Mars. Dec. 
10, 1896—opposition of Mars. 

But we have gone on rather elaborately with perhaps an in¬ 
sufficiency to base upon. We can not say, directly, that all the 
phenomena of the night of Dec. 16-17, 1896, were shocks from 
explosions in the sky: only during the greatest of the concussions 
was something seen, or was something near enough to be seen. 

We apply the idea of the diagrams to another series of occur¬ 
rences in this period. Now draw a diagram relatively to the 
sky of Florida, and see just what the explanation of coincidence 
demands or exacts. But then consider the diagram as one of an 
earth that does not move and of something that is fixed over a 
point upon its surface, Things caji be thought of as coming down 


186 


NEW LANDS 


from somewhere else to one special sky of this earth, as logically 
as precariously placed objects on one special window sill some¬ 
times come down to a special neighbor. 

In the Monthly Weather Review, 23-57, is a report, by the 
Director of the Florida Weather Service, upon “mysterious 
sounds” and luminous effects in the sky of Florida. According 
to investigation, these phenomena did occur in the sky of Florida, 
about noon, Feb. 7, 1895, again at 5 o’clock in the morning of 
the 8th, and again between 6 and 10 o’clock, night of the 8th. 
The Editor of the Review thinks that three meteors may have ex¬ 
ploded so in succession in the sky of Florida, and nowhere else, 
“by coincidence.” 


CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 


C HAR me the trunk of a redwood tree. Give me pages of 
white chalk cliffs to write upon. Magnify me thousands of 
times, and replace my trifling immodesties with a titanic megalo¬ 
mania—then might I write largely enough for our subjects. Be¬ 
cause of accessibility and abundance of data, our accounts deal 
very much with the relatively insignificant phenomena of Great 
Britain. But our subjects, if not so restricted, would be the vio¬ 
lences that have screamed from the heavens, lapping up villages 
with tongues of fire. If, because of appearances in the sky, be ac¬ 
cepted that some of the so-called earthquakes of Italy and South 
America represented relations with regions beyond this earth, then 
is accepted that some of this earth’s greatest catastrophes have been 
relations with the unknown and the external. We have data 
that seem to be indications of signalling, but not unless we can 
think that foreign giants have hurled explosive mountains at this 
earth can we see such indications in all the data. 

Our data do seem to fall into two orders of phenomena: sounds 
of Melida, Barisal, and Belgium, and nothing falling from the 
sky, and nothing seen in the sky, and excellently supported ob¬ 
servations for accepting a signal-like intent in intervals and group¬ 
ing of sounds, at least in Barisal and Belgium; and the unreg¬ 
ularized phenomena of Worcester-Hereford, Colchester, Comrie, 
and Birmingham, in which appearances are seen in the sky, or in 
which substances fall from the sky, and in which effects upon 
this earth, not noted at all in Belgium and Bengal, are great, and 
sometimes tremendous. It seems that extra-geography divides 
into the extra-sociologic and the extra-physical; and in the second 
type of phenomena, we suppose the data are of physical relations 
between this earth and other worlds. We think of a difference of 
potential. There were tremendous detonations in the sky at the 
times of the falls of the little black stones of Birmingham and 
Wolverhampton, and the electric manifestations, according to de- 


188 


NEW LANDS 


scriptions in the newspapers, were extraordinary, and great vol¬ 
umes of water fell. Consequently the events were supposed to be 
thunderstorms. I suppose, myself, that they were electric storms, 
but electric storms that represented difference of potential between 
this earth and some region that was fixed, at least eleven years, 
over Birmingham and Wolverhampton, bringing down stones and 
volumes of water from some other world, or bringing down stones, 
and dislodging intervening volumes of water, such as we have 
many data for thinking exist in outer space, sometimes in bodies 
of warm or hot water, and sometimes as great masses, or fields, 
of ice. 

Let two objects be generically similar, but specifically different 
and a relation that may be known as a difference of potential, 
though that term is usually confined to electric relations, gen¬ 
erates between them. Quite as the Gulf Stream—though there 
are no reasons to suppose that there is such a Gulf Stream as 
one reads of—represents a relation between bodies of water heated 
differently, given any two worlds, alike in general constitution, 
but differing, say, electrically, and given proximity, we conceive 
of relations between them other than gravitational. 

But this cloistered earth, and its monkish science—shrinking 
from, denying, or disregarding, all data of external relations, ex¬ 
cept some one controlling force that was once upon a time known 
as Jehovah, but that has been re-named Gravitation— 

That the electric exchanges that were recognized by the an¬ 
cients, but that were anthropomorphically explained by them, have 
poured from the sky and have gushed to the sky, afferently and 
efferently, between this earth and the nearby planets, or between 
this mainland and its San Salvadors, and have been recognized 
by the moderns, or the neo-ancients, but have been meteorologically 
and seismologically misconstrued by them. 

When a village spouts to the sky, it is said to have been caught 
up in a cyclone: when unknown substances fall from the sky, 
not much of anything is said upon the subject. 

Lost tribes and the nations that have disappeared from the 
face of this earth—that the skies have reeked with terrestrial 
civilizations, spreading out in celestial stagnations, where their 
remains to this day may be. The Mayans—and what became 


NEW LANDS 


189 


of them? Bones of the Mayans, picked white as frost by space- 
scavengers, regioned to this day in a sterile luxuriance somewhere, 
spread upon existence like the pseudo-breath of Death, crystal¬ 
lized on a sky-pane. Three times gaps wide and dark the history 
of Egypt—and that these abysses were gulfed by disappearances 
—that some of the eliminations from this earth may have been 
upward translations in functional suctions. We conceive of Super¬ 
vision upon this earth’s development, but for it the names of 
Jehovah and Allah seem old-fashioned—that the equivalence of 
wrath, but like the storms of cells that, in an embryonic thing, 
invade and destroy cartilage-cells, when they have outlived their 
usefulness, have devastated this earth’s undesirables. Likely 
enough, or not quite likely enough, one of these earlier Egypts 
was populated by sphinxes, if one can suppose that some of the 
statuary still extant in Egypt were portraitures. This is good, 
though also not so good, orthodox Evolutionary doctrine—that 
between types occur transitionals— 

That Elimination and Redistribution swept an earlier Egypt 
with suctions—because it was written, in symbols of embryonic 
law, that life upon this earth must form onward—and the crouch¬ 
ing sphinx on the sands of Egypt, blinking the mysticism of her 
morphologic mixtures, would perhaps detain forever the less in¬ 
teresting type that was advancing— 

That often has Clarification destroyed transitionals, that they 
shall not hold back development. 

One conceives of their remains, to this day, wafting still in 
the currents of the sky: floating avenues of frozen sphinxes, 
solemnly dipping in cosmic undulations, down which circulate pro¬ 
cessions of Egyptian mummies. 

An astronomer upon this earth notes that things in parallel 
lines have crossed the sun. 

We offer this contribution as comparing favorably with the 
works of any other historian. We think that some of the details 
may need revision, but that what they typify is somewhere nearly 
acceptable. 

Latitudes and longitudes of bones, not in the sky, but upon 
the surface of this earth. Baron Toll and other explorers have, 
upon the surface of this earth kicked their way through networks 


190 


NEW LANDS 


of ribs and protrusions of skulls and stacks of vertebrae, as 
numerous as if from dead land they had sprouted there. Any¬ 
body who has read of these tracts of bones upon the northern 
coast of Siberia, and of some of the outlying islands that are 
virtually composed of bones cemented with icy sand, will agree 
with me that there have been cataclysms of which conventionality 
and standardization tell us nothing. Once upon a time, some un¬ 
known force translated, from somewhere, a million animals to 
Colorado, where their remains now form great bone-quarries. 
Very largely do we express a reaction against dogmatism, and 
sometimes we are not dogmatic, ourselves. We don’t know very 
positively whether at times the animal life of some other world 
has been swept away from that world, or not, eventually pouring 
from the sky of Siberia and of Colorado, in some of the shock- 
ingest floods of mammoths from which spattered cats and rabbits, 
in cosmic scenery, or not. All that we can say is that when we 
turn to conventionality it is to blankness or suppression. Every 
now and then, to this day, occurs an alleged fall of blood from 
the sky, and I have notes upon at least one instance in which the 
microscopically examined substance was identified as blood. But 
now we conceive of intenser times, when every now and then a 
red cataract hung in the heavens like the bridal veil of the goddess 
of murder. But the science of today is a soporific like the idealism 
of Europe before the War broke out. Science and idealism— 
wings of a vampire that lulls consciousness that might otherwise 
foresee catastrophe. Showers of frogs and showers of fishes that 
occur to this day—that they are the dwindled representatives to 
this day of the cataclysms of intenser times when the skies of 
this earth were darkened by afferent clouds of dinosaurs. We 
conceive of intenser times, but we conceive of all times as being 
rhythmic times. We are too busy to take up alarmism, but, if 
Rome, for instance, never was destroyed by terrestrial barbarians, 
if we can not very well think of Apaches seizing Chicago, 
extra-mundane vandals may often have swooped down upon 
this earth, and they may swoop again; and it may be a comfort 
to us, some day, to mention in our last gasp that we told about 
this. 

History, geology, palaeontology, astronomy, meteorology—that 


NEW LANDS 


191 


nothing short of cataclysmic thinking can break down these united 
walls of Exclusionism. 

Unknown monsters sometimes appear in the ocean. When, 
upon the closed system of normal preoccupations, a story of a sea 
serpent appears, it is inhospitably treated. To us of the wider 
cordialities, it has recommendations for kinder reception. I think 
that we shall be noted in recognitions of good works for our bizarre 
charities. Far back in the topography of the nineteenth century, 
Richard Proctor was almost submerged in an ocean of smugness, 
but now and then he was a little island emerging from the gently 
alternating doubts and satisfactions of his era, and by means of 
several papers upon the “sea serpent” he so protruded and gave 
variety to a dreary uniformity. Proctor reviewed some of the 
stories of “sea serpents.” He accepted some of them. This will 
be news to some conventionalists. But the mystery that he could 
not solve is their conceivable origin. To be sure this earth may 
not be round, or top-shaped, and may tower away somewhere, 
perhaps with the great Antarctic plateau as its foothills, to a 
gigantic existence commensurate throughout with the sea monsters 
that sometimes reach regions known to us. Judging by our 
experience in other fields of research, we suspect that this earth 
never has been traversed except in conventional trade-routes and 
standard explorations. One supposes that enormous forms of life 
that have appeared upon the surface of the ocean, did not come 
from conditions of great pressure below the surface. If there be 
no habitat of their own, in unknown seas of this earth, the monsters 
fell from the sky, surviving for a while. In his day, Charles 
Lyell never said a more preposterous thing than this—however we 
have no idea that mere preposterousness is a criterion. 

Then at times the things have fallen upon land, presumably. 
To scientific minds in their present anaemia of malnutrition, we 
offer new nourishment. There are materials for a science of neo¬ 
palaeontology—as it were—at least a new view of animal-remains 
upon this earth. Remains of monsters, supposed to have lived 
geologic ages ago, are sometimes found, not in ancient deposits, 
but upon, or near, the surface of the ground, sometimes barely 
covered. I have notes upon a great pile of bones, supposed to be 
the remains of a whale, out in open yie\y in a western desert. 


192 


NEW LANDS 


In the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 
is the mummified body of a monster called a trachodon, found 
in Converse County, Wyoming. It was not found upon the sur¬ 
face of the ground, which is bad for our attempts to stimulate 
palaeontology. But the striking datum to me is that the only other 
huge mummy that I know of is another trachodon, now in the 
Museum of Frankfort. If only extraordinarily would geologic 
processes mummify remains of a huge animal, doubly extraor¬ 
dinarily would two animals of the same species be so exclusively 
affected. One at least gives some consideration to the idea that 
these trachodons are not products of geologic circumstances, but 
were affected, in common, by other circumstances. By inspiration, 
or progressive deterioration, one then conceives of the things as 
having wafted and dried in space, finally falling to this earth. 
Our swooping vandals are relieved with showering mummies. 
Life is turning out to be interesting. 

Organic substances like life-fluids of living things have rained 
from the sky. However, it is enough for our general purposes 
to make acceptable simply that unknown substances have, in 
large quantities, fallen from the sky. That is neo-ism enough, it 
seems to me. I consider, myself, all such data relatively to this 
earth’s stationariness or possible motions. In del et Terre, 
22-198, it is said that, about 2 p. m., June 8, 1901, a glue-like 
substance fell at Sart. The story is told by an investigator, M. 
Michael, a meteorologist. He says that he saw this substance 
falling from the sky, but does not give an estimate of duration: 
he says that he arrived during the last five minutes of the shower. 
Editors and extra-geographers can’t help trying to explain. The 
Editor of Ciel et Terre writes that, three days before, there had 
been, at Antwerp, a great fire, in which, among other substances, 
a large quantity of sugar had been burned. He asks whether 
there could be any connection. Antwerp is about 80 miles from 
Sart. 

Sept. 2, 1905—the tragedy of the space-pig: 

In the English Mechanic, 86-100, Col. Markwick writes that, 
according to the Cambrian Natural Observer, something was seen 
in the sky, at Llangollen, Wales, Sept. 2, 1905. It is described 
its an intensely black object, about two miles above the earth’s 


NEW LANDS 


193 


surface, moving at the rate of about twenty miles an hour. Col. 
Markwick writes: “Could it have been a balloon?” We give 
Col. Markwick good rating as an extra-geographer, but of the 
early, or differentiating type, a transitional, if not a sphinx: so he 
was not quite developed enough to publish the details of this 
object. In the Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905-35—the journal 
of the Astronomical Society of Wales—it is said that, according 
to accounts in the newspapers, an object had appeared in the sky, 
at Llangollen, Wales, Sept. 2, 1905. At the schoolhouse, in 
Vroncysylite—I think that’s it: with all my credulity, some of 
these Welsh names look incredible to me, in my notes—the thing 
in the sky had been examined through powerful field glasses. 
We are told that it had short wings, and flew, or moved, in a way 
described as “casually inclining sideways.” It seemed to have 
four legs, and looked to be about ten feet long. According to 
several witnesses it looked like a huge, winged pig, with webbed 
feet. “Much speculation was rife as to what the mysterious ob¬ 
ject could be.” 

Five days later, according to a member of the Astronomical 
Society of Wales—see Cambrian Observer, 1905-30—a purple- 
red substance fell from the sky, at Llanelly, Wales. 

I don’t know that my own attitude toward these data is under¬ 
stood, and I don’t know that it matters in the least; also from time 
to time my own attitude changes: but very largely my feeling is 
that not much can be, or should be, concluded from our meagre 
accounts, but that so often are these occurrences, in our fields, re¬ 
ported, that several times every year there will be occurrences that 
one would like to have investigated by someone who believes that 
we have written nothing but bosh, and by someone who believes 
in our data almost religiously. It may be that, early in February, 
1892, a luminous thing travelled back and forth, exploring for 
ten hours in the sky of Sweden. The story is copied from a news¬ 
paper, and ridiculed, in the English Mechanic, 55-34. Upon 
March 7, 1893, a luminous object, shaped like an elongated pear 
was seen in the sky of Val-de-la-Haye, by M. Raimond Coulon 
(VAstro., 1893-169). M. Coulon’s suggestion is that the light 
may have been a signal suspended from a balloon. The signal- 
idea is interesting. 


194 


NEW LANDS 


In the summer of 1897, several weeks after Prof. Andree and 
his two companions had sailed in a balloon, from Amsterdam Is¬ 
land, Spitzbergen, it was reported that a balloon had been seen 
in British Columbia. There was wide publicity: the report was 
investigated. It may be that had a terrestrial balloon escaped 
from somewhere in the United States or Canada, or if there had 
been a balloon-ascension at this time, the circumstance would have 
been reported: it may well be that the object was not Andree’s bal¬ 
loon. President Bell, of the National Geographic Society, heard 
of this object, and heard that details had been sent to the Swedish 
Foreign Office, and cabled to the American Minister, at Stock¬ 
holm, for information. He publishes his account in the National 
Geographic Magazine, 9-102. He was referred to the Swedish 
Consul, at San Francisco. In reply to inquiry, the Consul tele¬ 
graphed the following data, which had been collected by the 
President of the Geographical Society of the Pacific: 

“Statement of a balloon passing over the Horse-Fly Hydraulic 
Mining Camp, in Caribou, British Columbia, 52°, 20', and Longi¬ 
tude 120°, 30'— 

“From letters of J. B. Robson, manager of the Caribou Mining 
Co., and of Mrs. Wm. Sullivan, the blacksmith’s wife, there, and 
a statement of Mr. John J. Newsome, San Francisco, then at 
camp. About 2 or 3 o’clock, in the afternoon, between fourth 
and seventh of August last, weather calm and cloudless, Mrs. Sul¬ 
livan, while looking over the Hydraulic Bank, noticed a round, 
grayish-looking object in the sky, to the right of the sun. As 
she watched, it grew larger and was descending. She saw the 
larger mass of the balloon above, and a smaller mass apparently 
suspended from the larger. It continued to descend, until she 
plainly recognized it as a balloon and a large basket hanging 
thereto. It finally commenced to swing violently back and forth, 
and move very fast toward the eastward and northward. Mrs. 
Sullivan called her daughter, aged 18, and about this time Mrs. 
Robson and her daughter were observing it.” 

If someone saw a strange fish in the ocean, we’d like to know— 
what was it like? Stripes on him—spots—what? It would be 
unsatisfactory to be told over and over only that a dark body had 
crossed some waves. In Cosmos, n. s., 39-356, a satisfactory 


NEW LANDS 


195 


correspondent writes that, at Lille, France, Sept. 4, 1898, he saw 
a red object in the sky. It was like the planet Mars, but was in 
the position of no known planet. He looked through his tele¬ 
scope, and saw a rectangular object, with a violet-colored band on 
one side of it, and the rest of it striped with black and red. He 
watched it ten minutes, during which time it was stationary; then, 
like the object that was seen at the time of the Powell-mystery, it 
cast out sparks and disappeared. 

In the English Mechanic, 75-417, Col. Markwick writes that, 
upon May 10, 1902, a friend of his had seen in the sky, in South 
Devon, a great number of highly colored objects like little suns 
or toy-balloons. “Altogether beats me,” says Col. Markwick. 

Upon March 2, 1899, a luminous object in the sky, from 10 A. M., 
until 4 p. m., was reported from El Paso, Texas. Mentioned in 
the Observatory, 22-247—supposed to have been Venus, even 
though Venus was then two months past secondary maximum bril¬ 
liance. This seems reasonable enough, in itself, but there are 
other data for thinking that an unknown, luminous body was at 
this time, in the especial sky of the southwestern states. In the 
U. S. Weather Bureau Report (Ariz. Sec., March, 1899) it is 
said that, at Prescott, Arizona, Dr. Warren E. Day had seen a 
luminous object, upon the 8th of March, “that travelled with 
the moon” all day, until 2 p. m. It is said that, the day before, 
this object had been «een close to the moon, by Mr. G. O. Scott, 
at Tonto, Arizona. Dr. Day and Mr. Scott were voluntary ob¬ 
servers for the Weather Review. This association with the moon 
and this localization of observation are puzzling. 

La Nature (Sup.) Nov. 11, 1899—that at Luzarches, France, 
upon the 28th of October, 1899, M. A. Garrie had seen, at 4.50 
p. M., a round, luminous object rising above the horizon. About 
the size of the moon. He watched it for 15 minutes, as it moved 
away, diminishing to a point. It may be that something from 
external regions was for several weeks in the especial sky of 
France. In La Nature (Sup.) Dec. 16, 1899, someone writes 
that he had seen, Nov. 15, 1899, 7 p. m., at Dourite (Dordogne) 
an object like an enormous star, at times white, then red, and 
sometimes blue, but moving like a kite. It was in the south. He 
had never seen it before. Someone, in the issue of Dec. 30th, says 


196 


NEW LANDS 


that, without doubt it was the star Formalhaut, and asks for pre¬ 
cise position. Issue of Jan. 20, 1900—the first correspondent 
says that the object was in the southwest, about 35 degrees above 
the horizon, but moving so that the precise position could not be 
stated. The kite-like motion may have been merely seeming mo¬ 
tion—object may have been Formalhaut, though 35 degrees above 
the horizon seem to me to be too high for Formalhaut—but, then, 
like the astronomers, I’m likely at times to expose what I don’t 
know about astronomy. Formalhaut is not an enormous star. 
Seventeen are larger. 

May 1, 1908, between 8 and 9 p. m., at Vittel, France—an 
object, with a nebulosity around it, diameter equal to the moon’s, 
according to a correspondent to Cosmos, n. s., 58-535. At 9 
o’clock a black band appeared upon the object, and moved 
obliquely across it, then disappearing. The Editor thinks that 
the object was the planet Venus, under extraordinary meteorologic 
conditions. 

Dark obj., by Prof. Brooks, July 21, 1896 (Eng. Mec, 64-12); 
dark obj., by Gathmann, Aug. 22, 1896 ( Sci. Amer. Sup., 
67-363); two luminous objs., by Prof. Swift, evidently in a local 
sky of California, because unseen elsewhere in California, Sept. 
20, and one of them again, Sept. 21, 1896 (Astro. Jour. 17-8, 
103); “Waldemath’s second moon,” Feb. 5, 1898 (Eng. Mec., 
67—545); unknown obj., March 30, 1908 (Observatory, 31-215); 
dark obj., Nov. 10, 1908 (Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, 23-74), 


CHAPTER NINETEEN 


OLD HARBOR, Hanover Co., Virginia—two men in a field 



—“an apparently clear sky.” In the Monthly Weather Re¬ 
view, 28-29, it is said that upon Aug. 7, 1900, two men were 
struck by lightning. The Editor says that the weather map gave 
no indication of a thunderstorm, nor of rain, in this region at the 


time. 


In July, 1904, a man was killed on the summit of Mt. San 
Gorgi'onio, near the Mojave desert. It is said that he was killed 
by lightning. Two days later, upon the summit of Mt. Whitney, 
180 miles away, another man was killed “by lightning” (Ciel 
et Terre, 29-120). 

It is said, in Ciel et Terre, 17-42, that, in the year 1893, nine¬ 
teen soldiers were marching near Bourges, France, when they 
were struck by an unknown force. It is said that in known terms 
there is no explanation. Some of the men were killed, and others 
were struck insensible. At the inquest it was testified that there 
had been no storm, and that nothing had been heard. 

If there occur upon the surface of this earth pounces from 
blankness and seizures by nothings, and “sniping” with bullets 
of unfindable substance, we nevertheless hesitate to bring witch¬ 
craft and demonology into our fields. Our general subject now 
is the existence of a great deal that may be nearby, or temporarily 
nearby, ordinarily invisible, but occasionally revealed by special 
circumstances. A background of stars is not to be compared, in 
our data, with the sun for a background, as a means of revela¬ 
tions. We accept that there are sunspots, but we gather from gen¬ 
eral experience and special instances that the word “sunspot” is 
another of the standardizing terms like “auroral” and “meteoric” 
and “earthquakes.” See Webb’s Celestial Objects for some ob¬ 
servations upon large definite obscurations called “sunspots” but 
which were as evanescent against the sun as would be islands and 
jungles of space, if intervening only a few moments between this 


198 


NEW LANDS 


earth and the swiftly moving sun. According to Webb, astron¬ 
omers have looked at great obscurations upon the sun, have 
turned away, and then looked again, finding no trace of the 
phenomena. Eclipses are special circumstances, and rather often 
have large, unknown bulks been revealed by different light-effects 
during eclipses. For instance, upon Jan. 22, 1898, Lieut. 
Blackett, R. N., assisting Sir Norman Lockyer, at Yiziadrug, 
India, during the total eclipse of the sun, saw an unknown body 
between Venus and Mars (Jour. Leeds Astro. Soc., 1906-23). 
We have had other instances, and I have notes upon still more. 
The photographic plate is a special condition, or sensitiveness. 
In Knowledge, 16-234, a correspondent writes that, in August, 
1893, in Switzerland, moon-lighted night, he had exposed a 
photographic plate for one hour. Upon the photograph, when de¬ 
veloped, were seen irregular, bright markings, but there had been 
no lightning to this correspondent’s perceptions. 

The details of the sheep-panic of Nov. 3, 1888, are extraordi¬ 
nary. The region affected was much greater than was supposed 
by the writer whom we quoted in an earlier chapter. It is said 
in another account in Symons’ Meteorological Magazine, that, in 
a tract of land twenty-five miles long and eight miles wide, thou¬ 
sands of sheep had, by a simultaneous impulse, burst from their 
bounds; and had been found the next morning, widely scattered, 
some of them still panting with terror under hedges, and many 
crowded into comers of fields. See London Times, Nov. 20, 
1888. An idea of the great number of flocks affected is given by 
one correspondent who says that malicious mischief was out of 
the question, because a thousand men could not have frightened 
and released all these sheep. Someone else tries to explain that, 
given an alarm in one flock, it might spread to the others. But 
all the sheep so burst from their folds at about eight o’clock in 
the evening, and one supposes that many folds were far from con¬ 
tiguous, and one thinks of such contagion requiring considerable 
time spread over 200 square miles. Something of an alarming 
nature and of a pronounced degree occurred somewhere near, 
Reading, Berkshire, upon this evening. Also there seems to be 
something of special localization: the next year another panic 
occurred in Berkshire not far from Reading. 


NEW LANDS 


199 


I have a datum that looks very much like the revelation of a 
ghost-moon, though I think of it myself in physical terms of 
light-effects. In Country Queries and Notes, 1-138, 417, it is 
said that, in the sky of Gosport, Hampshire, night of Sept. 14, 
1908, was seen a light that came as if from an unseen moon. 
It may be that I can here record that there was a moon-like object 
in the sky of the Midlands and the south of England, this night, 
and that, though to human eyesight, this world, island of space, 
whatever it may have been, was invisible, it was, nevertheless, 
revealed. Upon this evening of Sept. 14, 1908, David Packer, 
then in Northfield, Worcestershire, saw a luminous appearance 
that he supposed was auroral, and photographed it. When the 
photograph was developed, it was seen that the “auroral” light 
came from a large, moon-like object. A reproduction of the 
photograph is published in the English Mechanic , 88-211. It 
shows an object as bright and as well-defined as the conventionally 
accepted moon, but only to the camera had it revealed itself, and 
Mr. Packer had caught upon a film a space-island that had been 
invisible to his eyes. It seems so, anyway. 

In Country Queries and Notes, 1-328, it is said that, upon 
Aug. 2, 1908, at Ballyconneely, Connemara coast of Ireland, was 
seen a phantom city of different-sized houses, in different styles of 
architecture; visible three hours. It is said that no doubt the 
appearance was a mirage of some city far away—far away, but 
upon this earth, of course. This apparition is not of the type 
that we consider so especially of our own data. The so-called 
mirages that so especially interest us are interesting to us not 
in themselves, but in that they belong to the one order of phe¬ 
nomena or evidence that unifies so many fields of our data: that 
is, repetitions in a local sky, signifying the fixed position of some¬ 
thing relatively to a small part of this earth’s surface. We can 
not think that mirages, terrestrial or extra-terrestrial, could so 
repeat. But if in a local sky of this earth there be a fixed region, 
perhaps not a city, but something of rugged and featureful out¬ 
lines, with projections that might look architectural, reflections 
from it, shadows, or Brocken spectres repeating always in one 
special sky are thinkable except by the Chinese-minded who re¬ 
gard all our data as “foreign devils.” The writer in Country 


200 


NEW LANDS 


Queries and Notes says—“Circumstantial accounts have even been 
published of the city of Bristol being distinctly recognized in a 
mirage seen occasionally in North America.” If we shall accept 
that anywhere in North America repeated representations of the 
same city or city-like scene have appeared in the same local sky, 
I prefer, myself, a foreign devil of a thought, and its significance, 
whether hellish or not, that this earth is stationary, to such a 
domestic vagrant of a thought as the idea that mirage could so 
pick out the city of Bristol, or any other city, over and over, and 
also invariably pick out for its screen the same local sky, thou¬ 
sands of miles, or five miles, away. 

In the English Mechanic, Sept. 10, 1897, a correspondent to 
the Weekly Times and Echo is quoted. He had just returned 
from the Yukon. Early in June, 1897, he had seen a city pictured 
in the sky of Alaska. “Not one of us could form the remotest 
idea in what part of the world this settlement could be. Some 
guessed Toronto, others Montreal, and one of us even suggested 
Pekin. But whether this city exists in some unknown world on 
the other side of the North Pole, or not, it is a fact that this 
wonderful mirage occurs from time to time yearly, and we were 
not the only ones who witnessed the spectacle. Therefore it is 
evident that it must be the reflection of some place built by the 
hand of man.” According to this correspondent, the “mirage” did 
not look like one of the cities named, but like “some immense 
city of the past.” 

In the New York Tribune, Feb. 17, 1901, it is said that In¬ 
dians of Alaska had told of an occasional appearance, as if of a 
city, suspended in the sky, and that a prospector, named Wil¬ 
loughby, having heard the stories, had investigated, in the year 
1887, and had seen the spectacle. It is said that, having several 
times attempted to photograph the scene, Willoughby did finally 
at least show an alleged photograph of an aerial city. In Alaska, 
p. 140, Miner Bruce says that Willoughby, one of the early pion¬ 
eers in Alaska, after whom Willoughby Island is named, had told 
him of the phenomenon, and that, early in 1899, he had ac¬ 
companied Willoughby to the place over which the mirage was 
said to repeat. It seems that he saw nothing himself, but he 
quotes a member of the Due d’ Abruzzi’s expedition to Mt. St. 


NEW LANDS 


201 


Elias, summer of 1897, Mr. C. W. Thornton, of Seattle, who saw 
the spectacle, and wrote—“It required no effort of the imagina¬ 
tion to liken it to a city, but was so distinct that it required, 
instead, faith to believe that it was not in reality a city.” Bruce 
publishes a reproduction of Willoughby’s photograph, and says 
that the city was identified as Bristol, England. So definite, or 
so un-mirage-like, is this reproduction, trees and many buildings 
shown in detail, that one supposes that the original was a photo¬ 
graph of a good-sized terrestrial city, perhaps Bristol, England. 

In Chapter 10, of his book, Wonders of Alaska , Alexander 
Badlam tries to explain. He publishes a reproduction of Wil¬ 
loughby’s photograph: it is the same as Bruce’s, except that all 
buildings are transposed, or are negative in positions. Badlam 
does not like to accuse Willoughby of fraud: his idea is that some 
unknown humorist had sold Willoughby a dry plate, picturing 
part of the city of Bristol. My own idea is that something of 
this kind did occur, and that this photograph, greatly involved 
in accounts of the repeating mirages, has nothing to do with the 
mirages. Badlam then tells of another photograph. He tells 
that two men, near the Muir Glacier, had, by means of a pan 
of quicksilver, seen a reflection of an unknown city somewhere, 
and that their idea was that it was at the bottom of the sea near 
the glacier, reflecting in the sky, and reflecting back to and from 
the quicksilver. That’s complicated. A photographer named 
Taber then announced that he had photographed this scene, as 
reflected in a pan of quicksilver. Badlam publishes a reproduc¬ 
tion of Taber’s photograph, or alleged photograph. This time, 
for anybody who prefers to think that there is, somewhere in the 
sky of Alaska, a great, unknown city, we have a most agreeable 
photograph: exotic-looking city; a structure like a coliseum, and 
another prominent building like a mosque, and many indefinite, 
mirage-like buildings. I’d like to think this photograph genuine, 
myself, but I do conceive that Taber could have taken it by 
photographing a panorama that he had painted. Badlam’s ex¬ 
planation is that mirages of glaciers are common, in Alaska, and 
that they look architectural. Some years ago, I read five or six 
hundred pounds of literature upon the Arctic, and I should say 
that far-projected mirages are not common in the Arctic: mere 


202 


NEW LANDS 


looming is common. Badlam publishes a photograph of a mirage 
of Muir Glacier. The looming points of ice do look Gothic, but 
they are obviously only loomings, extending only short distances 
from primaries, with no detachment from primaries, and not 
reflecting in the sky. 

For the first identification of the Willoughby photograph as 
a photograph of part of the city of Bristol, see the New York 
Times, Oct. 20, 1889. That this photograph was somebody’s 
hoax seems to be acceptable. But it was not similar to the fre¬ 
quently reported scene in the sky of Alaska, according to de¬ 
scriptions. In the New York Times, Oct. 31, 1889, is an ac¬ 
count, by Mr. L. B. French, of Chicago, of the spectral represen¬ 
tation, as he saw it, near Mt. Fairweather. “We could see 
plainly houses, well-defined streets, and trees. Here and there 
rose tall spires over huge buildings, which appeared to be ancient 
mosques or cathedrals. ... It did not look like a modern city 
—more like an ancient European City.” 

Jour. Roy. Met. Soc., 27-158: 

That every year, between June 21 and July 10, a “phantom 
city” appears in the sky, over a glacier in Alaska; that features 
of it had been recognized as buildings in the city of Bristol, Eng¬ 
land, so that the “mirage” was supposed to be a mirage of Bristol. 
It is said that for generations these repeating representations had 
been known to the Alaskan Indians, and that, in May, 1901, a 
scientific expedition from San Francisco would investigate. It 
is said that, except for slight changes, from year to year, the 
scene was always the same. 

La Nature, 1901-1-303: 

That a number of scientists had set out from Victoria, B. C., 
to Mt. Fairweather, Alaska, to study a repeating mirage of a city 
in the sky, which had been reported by the Due d’ Abruzzi, who 
had seen it and had sketched it. 


CHAPTER TWENTY 


N IGHT of Dec. 7, 1900—for seventy minutes a fountain of 
light played upon the planet Mars. 

Prof. Pickering—“absolutely inexplicable” (Sci. Amer., 84- 
179). 

It may have been a geyser of messages. It may be translated 
some day. If it were expressed in imagery befitting the saluta¬ 
tion by a planet to its dominant, it may be known some day as the 
most heroic oration in the literature of this geo-system. See 
Lowell’s account in Popular Astronomy, 10-187. Here are pub¬ 
lished several of the values in a possible code of long flashes and 
short flashes. Lowell takes a supposed normality for unity, and 
records variations of two thirds, one and one third, and one and 
a half. If there be, at Flagstaff, Arizona, records of all the 
long flashes and short flashes that were seen, for seventy minutes, 
upon this night of Dec. 7, 1900, it is either that the greetings of 
an island of space have been hopelessly addressed to a continental 
stolidity, or there will have to be the descent, upon Flagstaff, 
Arizona, by all the amateur Champollions of this earth, to con¬ 
centrate in one deafening buzz of attempted translation. 

It was at this time that Tesla announced that he had received, 
upon his wireless apparatus, vibrations that he attributed to the 
Martians. They were series of triplets. 

* * i* 

It is our expression that, during eclipses and oppositions and 
other notable celestial events, lunarians try to communicate with 
this earth, having a notion that at such times the astronomers of 
this earth may be more nearly alert. 

An eclipse of the moon, March 10-11, 1895—not a cloud; no 
mist—electric flashes like lightning, reported from a ship upon 
the Atlantic {Eng. Mec., 61-100). 

During the eclipse of the sun, July 29, 1897, a strange image 

203 


204 


NEW LANDS 


was taken on a sensitive plate, by Mr. L. E. Martindale, of St. 
Mary’s, Ohio. It looks like a record of knotted lightning. See 
Photography, May 26, 1898. 

In the Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, 17-205, 315, 447, it is 
said that upon the first and the third of March, 1903, a light like 
a little star, flashing intermittently, was seen by M. Rey, in Mar¬ 
seilles, and by Maurice Gheury, in London, in the lunar crater 
Aristarchus. March 28, 1903—opposition of Mars. 

In Cosmos, n. s., 49-259, M. Desmoulins writes, from Argen- 
teuil, that, upon August 9, 1903, at 11 p. m., moving from north 
to south, he saw a luminous object. The planet Venus was at 
primary greatest brilliance upon August 13, 1903. In three re¬ 
spects it was like other objects that have been observed upon this 
earth at times of the nearest approach of Venus: it was a red 
object; it appeared only in a local sky, and it appeared in the 
time of the visibility of Venus. With M. Desmoulins were four 
persons, one of whom had field glasses. The object was watched 
twenty minutes, during which time it travelled a distance estimated 
at five or six kilometres. It looked like a light suspended from 
a balloon, but, through glasses, no outline of a balloon could be 
seen, and there were no reflections of light as if from the opaque 
body of a balloon. It was a red body, with greatest luminosity in 
its nucleus. The Editor of Cosmos writes that, according to 
other correspondents, this object had been seen, at 11 p, m., July 
19th and 26th, at Chatou. Argenteuil and Chatou are 4 or 5 miles 
apart, and both are about 5 miles from Paris. All three of 
these dates were Sundays, and even though nothing like a balloon 
had been seen through glasses, one naturally supposes that some¬ 
body near Paris had been amusing himself sending up fire- 
balloons, Sunday evenings. The one great resistance to all that 
is known as progress is what one “naturally supposes.” 

In the English Mechanic, 81-220, Arthur Mee writes that sev¬ 
eral persons, in the neighborhood of Cardiff, had, upon the night 
of March 29, 1905, seen in the sky, “an appearance like a vertical 
beam of light, which was not due (they say) to a search light, or 
any such cause.” There were other observations, and they remind 
us of the observations by Noble and Bradgate, Aug. 28-29, 1883: 


NEW LANDS 


205 


then upon an object that cast a light like a searchlight; this time 
an association between a light like a searchlight, and a luminos¬ 
ity of definite form. In the Cambrian Natural Observer, 1905-32, 
are several accounts of a more definite-looking appearance that was 
seen, this night, in the sky of Wales—“like a long cluster of 
stars, obscured by a thin film or mist.” It was seen at the time 
of the visibility of Venus, then an “evening star”—about 10 p. m. 
It grew brighter, and for about half an hour looked like an in¬ 
candescent light. It was a conspicuous and definite object, ac¬ 
cording to another description—“like an iron bar, heated to an 
orange-colored glow, and suspended vertically.” 

Three nights later, something appeared in the sky of Cherbourg, 
France— UAstre Cherbourg —the thing that appeared, night after 
night, in the sky of the city of Cherbourg, at a time when the 
planet Venus was nearest (inferior conjunction April 26, 1905). 

Flammarion, in the Bull. Soc. Astro, de France, 19-243, says 
that this object was the planet Venus. He therefore denies that 
it had moved in various directions, saying that the supposed ob¬ 
servations to this effect were illusions. In L’Illustration, April 
22, 1905, he tells the story in his own way, and says some things 
that we are not disposed to agree with, but also he says that the 
ignorance of some persons is inenarrable. In Cosmos, n. s., 42- 
420, months after the occurrence, it is said that many correspon¬ 
dents had written to inquire as to UAstre Cherbourg. The 
Editor gives his opinion that the object was either Jupiter or 
Venus. Throughout our Venus-visitor expression, the most im¬ 
portant point is appearance in a local sky. That unifies this 
expression with other expressions, all of them converging into 
our general extra-geographic acceptances. The Editor of Cosmos 
says that this object, which was reported from Cherbourg, was 
reported from other towns as well. He probably means to say 
that it was seen simultaneously in different towns. For all guar¬ 
dians of this earth’s isolation, this is a convenient thing to say: 
the conclusion then is that the planet Venus, exceptionally bright, 
was attracting unusual attention generally, and that there was 
nothing in the especial sky of Cherbourg. But we have learned 
that standardizing disguisements often obscure our data in later 
accounts, and we have formed the habit of going to contemporane- 


206 


NEW LANDS 


ous sources. We shall find that the newspapers of the time re¬ 
ported a luminous object that appeared, night after night, only 
over the city of Cherbourg, as the name by which it was known 
indicates. It was a reddish object. The Editor of Cosmos ex¬ 
plains that atmospheric conditions could give this coloration to 
Venus. I suppose this could be so occasionally: not night after 
night, I should say. We shall find that this object, or a similar 
object was reported from other places, but not simultaneously with 
its appearance over Cherbourg. 

In the Journal des Debats, the first news is in the issue of 
April 4, 1905. It is said that a luminous body was appearing, 
every evening, between 8 and 10 o’clock, over the city of Cher¬ 
bourg. 

These were about the hours of the visibility of Venus. In this 
period, Venus set at 9.30 p. m., and Jupiter at 8 p. m. It is 
enough to make any conventionalist feel most reasonable, though 
he’d feel that way anyway, in thinking that of course then this 
object was Venus. In my own earlier speculations upon this sub¬ 
ject, this one datum stood out so that had it not been for other 
data, I’d have abandoned the subject. But then I read of other 
occurrences: time after time has something been seen in a local 
sky of this earth, sometimes so definitely seen to move, not like 
Venus, but in various directions, that one has to think that it was 
not Venus, though appearing at the time of visibility of Venus. 
Between these appearances and visibility of Venus there does 
seem to be relation. 

In the Journal, it is said that UAstre Cherbourg had an ap¬ 
parent diameter of 15 centimetres, and a less definite margin of 
75 centimetres—seemed to be about a yard wide—meaningless 
of course. In the Bull Soc. Astro, de France, it is said that, ac¬ 
cording to reports, its form was oval. In the Journal des Debats, 
we are told that, at first the thing was supposed to be a captive 
balloon but that this idea was given up because it appeared and 
disappeared. 

Journal des Debats, April 12: 

That every evening the luminous object was continuing to ap¬ 
pear above Cherbourg; that many explanations had been thought 
of: by some persons that it was the planet Jupiter, and by others 


NEW LANDS 


207 


that it was a comet but that no one knew what it was. The comet- 
explanation is of course ruled out. The writer in the Journal 
expresses regret that neither the Meteorological Bureau nor the 
Observatory of Paris had sent anybody to investigate, but says 
that the prefet maritime, of Cherbourg had commissioned a naval 
officer to investigate. In Le Temps, of the 12th, is published an 
interview with Flammarion, who complains some more against 
general inenarrable-ness, and says that of course the object was 
Venus. The writer in Le Temps says that soon would the mat¬ 
ter be settled, because the commander of a war ship had under¬ 
taken to decide what the luminous body was. 

Le Figaro, April 13: 

The report of Commander de Kerillis, of the Chasseloup-Lau- 
but —that the position of L’Astre Cherbourg was not the position 
of Venus, and that the disc did not look like the crescentic disc of 
Venus, but that the observations had been made from a vessel, un¬ 
der unfavorable conditions, and that the commander and his 
colleagues did not offer a final opinion. 

I think that there was inenarrable-ness all around. Given visi¬ 
bility, I can’t think what the unfavorable conditions could have 
been. Given, however, observations upon something that all the 
astronomers in the world would say could not be, one does think of 
the dislike of a naval officer, who, though he probably knew right 
ascension from declination, was himself no astronomer, to com¬ 
mit himself. In Le Temps, and other newspapers published in 
Paris, it is said that, according to the naval officers, the object 
might have been a comet, but that they would not positively 
commit themselves to this opinion, either. 

I think that somebody should be brave; so, though not posi¬ 
tively, of course, I incline, myself, to relate these appearances 
over Cherbourg with the observations in Wales, upon March 29th; 
also I suggest that there is another report that may relate. In 
Le Temps, April 12, it is said that, at midnight, April 9-10, a 
luminous body, like VAstre Cherbourg, was seen in the sky of 
Tunis. - Though it was visible several minutes, it is said that this 
object was probably a meteor. 

Every night, from the first to the eleventh of April, a luminous 
body appeared in the sky of Cherbourg. Then it was seen no 


208 


NEW LANDS 


longer. It may have been seen sailing away, upon its final 
departure from the sky of Cherbourg. In Le Figaro, April 15, 
it is said that, upon the night of the eleventh of April, the guards 
of La Blanche Lighthouse had seen something like a lighted bal¬ 
loon in the sky. Supposing it was a balloon, they had started 
to signal to it, but it had disappeared. It is said that the light¬ 
house had been out of communication with the mainland, and that 
the guards had not heard of L’Astre Cherbourg. 

In the London Times, Nov. 23, 1905, a correspondent writes 
that, at East Liss, Hants, which is about 40 miles from Reading, 
he and his gamekeeper had, about 3.30 p. m., Nov. 17th, heard 
a loud, distant rumbling. According to this hearer, the rumbling 
seemed to be a composition of triplets of sounds. We shall ac¬ 
cept that three sounds were heard, but we have no other assertion 
that each sound was itself so sub-serialized. This correspondent’s 
gamekeeper said that he had heard similar sounds at 11.30 A. M., 
and at 1.30 p. m . It is said that the sounds were not like gun¬ 
fire, and that the direction from which they seemed to come, and 
the time in the afternoon, precluded the explanation of artillery- 
practice at Aldershot or Portsmouth. Aldershot is about 15 miles 
from East Liss, and Portsmouth about 20. 

Times, Nov. 24—that the “quake” had been distinctly felt in 
Reading, about 3.30 p. m., Nov. 17th. Times, Nov. 25—heard 
at Reading, at 11.30, 1.30, and 3.30 o’clock, Nov. 17th. 

Reading Standard, Nov. 25: 

That consternation had been caused in Reading, upon the 17th, 
by sounds and vibrations of the earth, about 11.30 a. m., 1.30 
p. m., and 3.30 p. m. It is said that nothing had been seen, but 
that the sounds closely resembled those that had been heard during 
the meteoric shower of 1866. 

Mr. H. G. Fordham appears again. In the Times, Dec. 1, he 
writes that the phenomena pointed clearly to an explosion in the 
sky, and not to an earthquake of subterranean origin. “The 
noise and shock experienced are no doubt attributable to the ex¬ 
plosion (or to more than one explosion) of a meteorite, or bolide, 
high up in the atmosphere, and setting up a wave (or waves) of 
sound and aerial shock. It is probable, indeed, that a good many 


NEW LANDS 


209 


phenomena having this source are wrongly ascribed to slight and 
local earthshock.” 

Mr. Fordham wrote this, but he wrote no more, and I think that 
somewhere else something else was written, and that, in the year 
1905, it had to be obeyed; and that it may be interpreted in these 
words—“Thou shalt not.” Mr. Fordham did not inquire into 
the reasonableness of thinking that, only by coincidence, meteors 
so successively exploded, in a period of four hours, in one local 
sky of this earth, and nowhere else; and into the inference, then, 
as to whether this earth is stationary or not. 

We have data of a succession occupying far more than four 
hours. 

In the Times, Mrs. Lane, of Petersfield, 20 miles from Ports¬ 
mouth, writes that, at 11.30 A. m., and at 3.30 p. m., several days 
before the 17th, she had heard the detonations, then hearing them 
again, upon the 17th. Mrs. Lane thinks that there must have 
been artillery-practice at Portsmouth. It seems clear that there 
was no cannonading anywhere in England, at this time. It seems 
clear that there was signalling from some other world. 

In the English Mechanic, 82-433, Joseph Clark writes that, a 
few minutes past 3 p. m., upon the 18th a triplet of detonations 
was heard at Somerset—“as loud as thunder, but not exactly like 
thunder.” 

Reading Observer, Nov. 25—that, according to a correspondent, 
the sounds had been heard again, at Whitechurch (20 miles from 
Reading) upon the 21st, at 1.35 p. m., and 3.8 p. m. The sounds 
had been attributed to artillery-practice at Aldershot, but the 
correspondent had written to the artillery commandant, at Bul- 
ford Camp, and had received word that there had been no heavy 
firing at the times of his inquiry. The Editor of the Observer 
says that he, too, had written to the commandant, and had re¬ 
ceived the same answer. 

I have searched widely. I have found record of nobody’s sup¬ 
position that he had traced these detonations to origin upon this 
earth. 


CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 


I N Coconino County, Arizona, is an extraordinary formation. 

It is known as Coon Butte and as Crater Mountain. Once 
upon a time, something gouged this part of Arizona. The cavity 
in the ground is about 3,800 feet in diameter, and it is approxi¬ 
mately 600 feet deep, from the rim of the ramparts to the floor of 
the interior. Out from this cavity had been hurled blocks of 
limestone, some of them a mile or so away, some of these masses 
weighing probably 5,000 tons each. And in the formation, and 
around it, have been found either extraordinary numbers of meteor¬ 
ites, or fragments of one super-meteorite. Barringer, in his re¬ 
port to the Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia {Pro¬ 
ceedings, A. N. S. R, Dec., 1905) says that, of the trafficers in 
this meteoritic material, he knew of two men who had shipped 
away fifteen tons of it. But Barringer’s minimum estimate of a 
body large enough so to gouge the ground is ten million tons. 

It was supposed that a main mass of meteoritic material was 
buried under the floor of the formation, but this floor was drilled, 
and nothing was found to support this supposition. One drill 
went down 1020 feet, going through 100 feet of red sandstone, 
which seems to be the natural, undisturbed sub-structure. The 
datum that opposes most strongly the idea that this pit was 
gouged by one super-meteorite is that in it and around it at least 
three kinds of meteorites have been found: they are irons, masses 
of iron-shale, and shale-balls that are so rounded and individual¬ 
ized that they can not be thought of as fragments of a greater 
body, and can not be very well thought of as great drops of 
molten matter cast from a main, incandescent mass, inasmuch as 
there is not a trace of igneous rock such as would mark such con¬ 
tact. 

There are data for thinking that these three kinds of objects 
fell at different times, presumably from origin of fixed position 
relatively to this point in Arizona. Within the formation, shales 

2IO 


NEW LANDS 


211 


were found, buried at various distances, as if they had fallen at 
different times, for instance seven of them in a vertical line, the 
deepest-buried 27 feet down; also shales outside the formation 
were found buried. But, quite as if they had fallen more re¬ 
cently, the hundreds of irons were found upon the surface of the 
ground, or partly covered, or wholly covered, but only with super¬ 
ficial soil. 

There is no knowing when this great gouge occurred, but cedars 
upon the rim are said to be about 700 years old. 

In terms of our general expression upon differences of potential, 
and of electric relations between nearby worlds, I think of a 
blast between this earth and a land somewhere else, and of some¬ 
thing that was more than a cyclone that gouged this pit. 

Other meteorites have been found in Arizona: the 85-pound iron 
that was found at Weaver, near Wickenburg, 130 miles from 
Crater Mountain, in 1898, and the 960-pound mass, now in the 
National Museum, said to have been found at Peach Springs, 140 
miles from Crater Mountain. These two irons indicate nothing 
in particular; but, if we accept that somewhere else in Arizona 
there is another deposit of meteorites, also extraordinarily abun¬ 
dant, such abundance gives something of commonness of nature if 
not of commonness of origin to two deposits. There are several 
large irons known as the Tucson meteorites, one weighing 632 
pounds and another 1514 pounds, now in museums. They came 
from a place known as Iron Valley, in the Santa Rita Moun¬ 
tains, about 30 miles south of Tucson, and about 200 miles from 
Crater Mountain. Iron Valley was so named because of the 
great number of meteorites found in it. According to the people 
of Tucson, this fall occurred about the year 1660. See Amer. 
Jour . Set., 2-13-290. 

Upon June 24, 1905, Barringer found, upon the plain, about 
' a mile and a half northwest of Crater Mountain, a meteorite 
of a fourth kind. It was a meteoritic stone, “as different from 
all the other specimens as one specimen could be from another.” 
Barringer thinks that it fell, about the 15th of January, 1904. 
Upon a night in the middle of January, 1904, two of his em¬ 
ployees were awakened by a loud hissing sound, and saw a meteor 
falling north of the formation. At the same time, two Arizona 


212 


NEW LANDS 


physicians, north of the formation, saw the meteor falling south 
of them. For analysis and description of this object, see Amer. 
Jour. Sci., 4-21-353. Barringer, who believes that once upon a 
time one super-meteorite, of which only a very small part has ever 
been found, gouged this hole in the ground, writes—“That a 
small stony meteorite should have fallen on almost exactly the 
same spot on this earth’s surface as the great Canon Diablo iron 
meteorite fell many centuries ago, is certainly a most remarkable 
coincidence. I have stated the facts as accurately as possible, and 
I have no opinion to offer, as to whether or not these involve any¬ 
thing more than a coincidence.” 

Other phenomena in Arizona: 

Upon Feb. 24, 1897, a great explosion was heard over the 
town of Tombstone. It is said that a fragment of a meteor fell 
at St. David (Monthly Weather Review, 1897-56). Yarnell, 
Arizona, Sept. 12, 1898—“a loud, deep, thundering noise” that 
was heard between noon and 1 p. m. “The noise proceeded from 
the Granite Range, this side of Prescott. From all accounts, a 
large meteor struck the earth at this time” ( U. S. Weather Bureau 
Rept., Ariz, Section, Sept., 1898). 

Upon July 19, 1912, at Holbrook, Arizona, about 50 miles from 
Crater Mountain, occurred a loud detonation and one of the most 
remarkable falls of stones recorded. See Amer. Jour. Sci., 4-34- 
437. Some of the stones are very small. About 14,000 were col¬ 
lected. Only twice, since the year 1800, have stones in greater 
numbers fallen from the sky to this earth, according to conven¬ 
tional records. 

About a month later (Aug. 18) there was another concussion at 
Holbrook. This was said to be an earthquake (Bull. Seis. Soc. 
Amer., 1-209). 


CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 


T HE climacteric opposition of Mars, of 1909—the last in 
our records—the next will be in 1924— 

Aug. 8, 1909—see Quar. Jour. Met. Soc., n. s., 35-299—flashes 
in a clear sky that were seen in Epsom, Surrey, and other places 
in the southeast of England. They could not be attributed to 
lightning in England. The writer in the Journal finds that 
there was a storm in France, more than one hundred miles away, 
For an account of these flashes, tabulated at Epsom—“night fine 
and starlight”—see Symons' Met. Mag., 44-148. During each 
period of five minutes, from 10 to 11.15, p. m., the number 
of flashes—16—14-20-31—15-26-12—20-^30-18-2 7—22-14—12-10- 
21-8-5-3-1-0-1-0. With such a time-basis, I can see no possi¬ 
bility of detecting anything of a code-like significance. I do see 
development. There were similar observations at times in the 
favorable oppositions of Mars of 1875 and 1877. In 1892, such 
flashes were noted more particularly. Now we have them noted 
and tabulated, but upon a basis that could be of interest only to 
meteorologists. If they shall be seen in 1924, we may have ob¬ 
servation, tabulation, and some marvellously different transla¬ 
tions of them. After that there will be some intolerably similar 
translations, suspiciously delayed in publication. 

Sept. 23, 1909—opposition of Mars. 

Throughout our data, we have noticed successions of appear¬ 
ances in local skies of this earth, that indicate that this earth 
is stationary, but that also relate to nearest approaches of Mars. 
Upon the night of Dec. 16-17, 1896, concussion after concussion 
was felt at Worcester, England; a great “meteor” was seen at 
the time of the greatest concussion. Mars was seven days past 
opposition. We thought it likely enough that explosion after 
explosion had occurred over Worcester, and that something in the 
sky had been seen only at the time of the greatest, or the nearest, 

213 


214 


NEW LANDS 


explosion. We did not think well of the conventional explana¬ 
tion that only by coincidence had a great meteor exploded over 
a region where a series of earthquakes was occurring, and exactly 
at the moment of the greatest of these shocks. 

In November, 1911, Mars was completing his cycle of chang¬ 
ing proximities of a duration of fifteen years, and was duplicat¬ 
ing the relationship of the year 1896. About 10 o’clock, night 
of Nov. 16, 1911, a concussion that is conventionally said to 
have been an earthquake occurred in Germany and Switzerland. 
But plainly there was an explosion in the sky. In the Bulletin 
of the Seismological Society of America, 3-189, Count Montessus 
de Ballore writes that he had examined 112 reports upon flashes 
and other luminous appearances in the sky that had preceded the 
“earthquake” by a few seconds. He concludes that a great 
meteor had only happened to explode over a region where, a few 
seconds later, there was going to be an earthquake. “It there¬ 
fore seems highly probable that the earthquake coincided with a 
fall of meteors or of shooting stars.” 

The duplication of the circumstances of Dec., 1896, con¬ 
tinues. If of course this concussion in Germany and Switzerland 
was the effect of something that exploded in the sky—of what 
were the concussions that were felt later, the effects? De Ballore 
does not mention anything that occurred later. But, a few min¬ 
utes past midnight, and then again, at 3 o’clock, morning of the 
17th, there were other, but slighter, shocks. Only at the time of 
the greatest shock was something seen in the sky. Nature, 88-117 
—that this succession of phenomena did occur. We relate the 
phenomena to the planet Mars, but also we ask—how, if most 
reasonably, all three of these shocks were concussions from ex¬ 
plosions in the sky, if of course one of them was, meteors could 
ever so hound one small region upon a moving earth, or projectiles 
be fired with such specialization and preciseness? November 
17th, 1911 was seven days before the opposition of Mars. Though 
the opposition occurred upon the 24th of November, Mars was at 
minimum distance upon the 17th. 

No matter how difficult of acceptance our own notions may be, 
they are opposed by this barbarism, or puerility, or pill that can’t 
be digested: 


NEW LANDS 


215 


Seven days from the opposition of Mars, in 1896, a great 
meteor exploded over a region where there had been a succession 
of earthquakes—by coincidence; 

Seven days from the next similar opposition of Mars, a great 
meteor exploded over a region where there was going to be a 
succession of earthquakes—by coincidence. 

The Advantagerians of the moon—that is the cult of lunar 
communicationists, who try to take advantage of such celestial 
events as oppositions and eclipses, thinking that astronomers, or 
night watchmen, or policemen of this earth might at such times 
look up at the sky— 

A great luminous object, or a meteor, that was seen at the time 
of the eclipse of June 28, 1908—“as if to make the date of the 
eclipse more memorable,” says W. F. Denning ( Observatory, 31- 
288). 

Not long before the opposition of Mars, in 1909, the bright 
spot west of Picard was seen twice: March 26 and May 23 
(Jour. B. A A., 19-376). 

Nov. 16, 1910—an eclipse of the moon, and a “meteor” that 
appeared, almost at the moment of totality (Eng. Mec., 92-430). 
It is reported, in Nature, 85-118, as seen by Madame de Robeck, 
at Naas, Ireland, “from an apparent radiant, just below the 
eclipsed moon.” The thing may have come from the moon. 
Seemingly with the same origin, it was seen far away in France. 
In La Nature, Nov. 26, 1910, it is said that, at Besangon, France, 
during the eclipse, was seen a meteor like a superb rocket, “qui 
serait partie de la lune.” There may have been something occur¬ 
ring upon the moon at the time. In the Jour. B. A. A., 21-100, 
it is said that Mrs. Albright had seen a luminous point upon the 
moon throughout the eclipse. 


Our expression is that there is an association between reported 
objects, like extra-mundane visitors, and nearest approaches by 
the planet Venus to this earth. Perhaps unfortunately this is 
our expression, because it makes for more restriction than we in¬ 
tend. The objects, or the voyagers, have often been seen during 
the few hours of the visibility of Venus, when the planet is near- 



216 


NEW LANDS 


est. “Then such an object is Venus,” say the astronomers. If 
anybody wonders why, if these seeming navigators can come close 
to this earth—as they do approach, if they appear only in a local 
sky—they do not then come all the way to this earth, let him 
ask a sea captain why said captain never purposely descends to 
the bottom of the ocean, though travelling often not far away. 
However, I conceive of a great variety of extra-mundanians, and 
I am now collecting data for a future expression—that some kinds 
of beings from outer space can adapt to our conditions, which may 
be like the bottom of a sea, and have been seen, but have been sup¬ 
posed to be psychic phenomena. 

Upon Oct. 31, 1908, the planet Venus was four months past 
inferior conjunction, and so had moved far from nearest approach, 
but there are vague stories of strange objects that had been seen 
in the skies of this earth—localized in New England—back to 
the time of nearest approach. In the New York Sun , Nov. 1, 
1908, is published a dispatch, from Boston, dated Oct. 31. It is 
said that, near Bridgewater, at four o’clock in the morning of Oct. 
31, two men had seen a spectacle in the sky. The men were 
not astronomers. They were undertakers. There may be a dis¬ 
position to think that these observers were not in their own field 
of greatest expertness, and to think that we are not very exacting 
as to the sources of our data. But we have to depend upon un¬ 
dertakers, for instance: early in our investigations, we learned that 
the prestige of astronomers has been built upon their high moral 
character, all of them most excellently going to bed soon after 
sunset, so as to get up early and write all day upon astronomical 
subjects. But the exemplary in one respect may not lead to much 
advancement in some other respect. Our undertakers saw, in the 
sky, something like a searchlight. It played down upon this 
earth, as if directed by an investigator, and then it flashed upward. 
“All of the balloons in which ascensions are made, in this State, 
were accounted for today, and a search through southeastern Mas¬ 
sachusetts failed to reveal any further trace of the supposed air¬ 
ship.” It is said that “mysterious bright lights,” believed to have 
come from a balloon, had been reported from many places in 
New England. The week before, persons at Ware had said that 
they had seen an illuminated balloon passing over the town, early 


NEW LANDS 


217 


in the morning. During the summer such reports had come from 
Bristol, Conn., and later from Pittsfield, Mass., and from White 
River Junction, Vt. “In all these cases, however, no balloon 
could be found, all the known airships being accounted for.” In 
the New York Sun, Dec. 13, 1909, it is said that, during the 
autumn of 1908, reports had come from different places in Con¬ 
necticut, upon a mysterious light that moved rapidly irf the sky. 

Venus moved on, travelling around the sun, which was revolv¬ 
ing around this earth, or travelling any way to suit anybody. In 
December, 1909, the planet was again approaching this earth. 
So close was Venus to this earth that, upon the 15th of December, 
1909, crowds stood, at noon, in the streets of Rome, watching it, 
or her (New York Sun, Dec. 16). At 3 o’clock, afternoon of 
December 24th crowds stood in the streets of New York, watching 
Venus (New York Tribune, Dec. 25). One supposes that upon 
these occasions Venus may have been within several thousand 
miles of this earth. At any rate I have never heard of one fairly 
good reason for supposing otherwise. If again something ap¬ 
peared in local skies of this earth, or in the skies of New England, 
and sometimes during the few hours of the visibility of Venus, the 
object was or was not Venus, all according to the details of vari¬ 
ous descriptions, and the credibility of the details. The search¬ 
light, for instance; more than one light; directions and motions. 
Venus, at the time, was for several hours after sunset, slowly de¬ 
scending in the southwest: primary maximum brilliance Jan. 8th, 
1910; inferior conjunction Feb. 12th. 

There is an amusing befuddlement to clear away first. Upon 
the night of September 8, 1909, a luminous object had been seen 
sailing over New England, and sounds from it, like sounds from 
a motor, had been heard. Then Mr. Wallace Tillinghast, of 
Worcester, Mass., announced that this light had been a lamp in 
his “secret aeroplane,” and that upon this night he had travelled, 
in said “secret aeroplane,” from Boston to New York, and back 
to Boston. At this time the longest recorded flight, in an aero¬ 
plane, was Farman’s, of 111 miles, from Rheims, August, 1909; 
and, in the United States, according to records, it was not until 
May 29, 1910, that Curtiss flew from Albany to New York City, 
making one stop in the 150 miles, however. So this unrecorded 


218 


NEW LANDS 


flight made some stir in the newspapers. Mr. Tillinghast meant 
his story humorously of course. I mention it because, if any¬ 
body should look the matter up, he will find the yarn involved in 
the newspaper accounts. If nothing else had been seen, Mr. 
Tillinghast might still tell his story, and explain why he never 
did anything with his astonishing “secret aeroplane”; but some¬ 
thing else was seen, and upon one of the nights in which it ap¬ 
peared, Tillinghast was known to be in his home. 

According to the New York Tribune, Dec. 21, 1909, Immigra¬ 
tion Inspector Hoe, of Boston, had reported having seen, at one 
o’clock in the morning of December 20, “a bright light passing 
over the harbor” and had concluded that he had seen an airship 
of some kind. 

New York Tribune, Dec. 23—that a “mysterious airship” had 
appeared over the town of Worcester, Mass., “sweeping the heavens 
with a searchlight of tremendous power.” It had come from the 
southeast, and travelled northwest, then hovering over the city, 
disappearing in the direction of Marlboro. Two hours later, it 
returned. “Thousands thronged the streets, watching the mysteri¬ 
ous visitor.” Again it hovered, then moving away, heading first 
to the south and then to the east. 

The next night, something was seen, at 6 o’clock, at Boston. 
“The searchlights shot across the sky line.” “As it flew away to 
the north, queries began to pour into the newspaper offices and 
the police stations, regarding the remarkable visitation.” It is 
said that an hour and a half later, an object that was supposed to 
be an airship with a powerful searchlight, appeared in the sky, at 
Willimantic, Conn., “hovering” over the town about 15 minutes. 
In the New York Sun, Dec. 24, are more details. It is said that, 
at Willimantic, had been seen a large searchlight, approaching 
from the east, and that then dark outlines of something behind the 
searchlight had been seen. Also, in the Sun, it is said that what¬ 
ever it may have been that was seen at Boston, it was a dark ob¬ 
ject, with several red lights and a searchlight, approaching Boston 
from the west, hovering for 10 minutes, and then moving away 
westward. From Lynn, Mass., it was described as “a long black 
object,” moving in the direction of Salem, and then returning, 


NEW LANDS 


219 


“at a high speed.” It is said that the object had been seen at 
Marlboro, Mass., nine times since Dec. 14. 

New York Tribune, Jan. 1, 1910—dispatch from Huntington, 
West Virginia, Dec. 31, 1909—“Three huge lights of almost uni¬ 
form dimensions appeared in the early morning sky, in this neigh¬ 
borhood, today. Joseph Green, a farmer, declared that they were 
meteors, which fell on his farm. An extensive search of his land 
by others who saw the lights was fruitless, and many persons be¬ 
lieve that an airship had sped over the country.” 

In the Tribune, Jan. 13, 1910, it is said that, at 9 o’clock, 
morning of Jan. 12, an airship had been seen at Chattanooga, 
Tenn. “Thousands saw the craft, and heard the ‘chug’ of its 
engine.” Later the object was reported from Huntsville, Ala¬ 
bama. New York Tribune, Jan. 15—dispatch from Chattanooga, 
Jan. 14—“For the third successive day, a mysterious white air¬ 
craft passed over Chattanooga, about noon today. It came from 
the north, and was travelling southeast, disappearing over Mis¬ 
sionary Ridge. On Wednesday, it came south, and on Thursday, 
it returned north.” 

In the middle of December, 1909, someone had won a prize for 
sailing in a dirigible from St. Cyr to the Eiffel Tower and back. 

St. Cyr is several miles from Paris. 

Huntsville, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, are 75 miles 
apart. 

An association between the planet Venus and “mysterious vis¬ 
itors” either illumines or haunts our data. In the New York Tri¬ 
bune, Jan. 29, 1910, it is said that a luminous object, thought to 
be Winnecke’s comet, had been seen, Jan. 28, near Venus; re¬ 
ported from the Manila Observatory. 

I have another datum that perhaps belongs to this series of 
events. Every night, from the 14th to the 23rd of December, 1909, 
if we accept the account from Marlboro, a luminous object was 
seen travelling, or exploring, in the sky of New England. Cer¬ 
tainly enough it was no “secret airship” of this earth, unless its 
navigator went to extremes with the notion that the best way to 
kept a secret is to announce it with red lights and a searchlight. 
However, our acceptance depends upon general data as to the de- 


220 


NEW LANDS 


velopment of terrestrial aeronautics. But upon the night of De¬ 
cember 24th, the object was not seen in New England, and it may 
have been travelling or exploring somewhere else. Night of the 
24th—Venus in the southwest in the early hours of the evening. 
In the English Mechanic, 104-71, a correspondent, who signs 
himself “Rigel,” writes that, upon Dec. 24, at 8.30 o’clock in the 
evening, he saw a luminous object appear above the northeastern 
horizon and slowly move southward, until 8.50 o’clock, then turn¬ 
ing around, retracing, and disappearing whence it came, at two 
minutes past nine. The correspondent is James Fergusen, Ross- 
brien, Limerick, Ireland. He writes frequently upon astronomical 
and meteorological subjects, and is still contributing to the some¬ 
what enlightened columns of the English Mechanic. 

Nov. 19, 1912—explosive sounds reported from Sunninghill, 
Berkshire. No earthquake was recorded at the Kew Observatory, 
and, in the opinion of W. F. Denning (Nature, 9-363, 417) the 
explosion was in the sky. It was a terrific explosion, according 
to the Westminster Gazette (Nov. 19). There was either one 
great explosion that rumbled and echoed for five minutes, or there 
were repeated detonations, resembling cannonading—“like a tre¬ 
mendous discharge of big guns” according to reports from Abing¬ 
don, Lewes, and Epsom. Sunninghill is about ten miles from 
Reading, and Abingdon is near Reading, but the sound was heard 
in London, and down by the English Channel, and even in the 
island of Alderney. In the Gazette, Nov. 28, Sir George Ford- 
ham (H. G. Fordham) writes that, in his opinion, it was an 
explosion in the sky. He says—“The phenomena of airshock 
never have, I believe, been very fully investigated.” His admis¬ 
sions and his omissions remain the same as they have been since 
occurrences of the year 1889. He does not mention that, accord¬ 
ing to Philip T. Kenway, of Hambledon, near Godaiming, about 
thirty miles southeast of Reading, the sounds were heard again 
the next day, from 1.45 to 2 p. m. Mr. Kenway thinks that there 
had been big-gun firing at Portsmouth (West. Gaz., Nov. 21). 
In the London Standard, a correspondent, writing from Dorking, 
say that the phenomena of the 19 th were like concussions from 


NEW LANDS 


221 


cannonading—“at regular intervals”—“at quick intervals, last¬ 
ing some seconds each time, for five minutes, by the clock.” 

It develops that Reading was the center over which the detona¬ 
tions occurred. In the Westminster Gazette, Nov. 30, it is said 
that the shocks had been felt in Reading, upon the 19th, 20th, 
and 21st. Only from Reading have I record of phenomena upon 
the 21st. Mr. H. L. Hawkins, Lecturer in Geology, of the Read¬ 
ing University, writes that according to his investigations there 
had been no gun-firing in England, to which the detonations 
could be attributed. He says that Fordham’s explanation was 
in accord with his own investigations, or that the detonations had 
occurred in the sky. He writes that, inasmuch as the detonations 
had occurred upon three successive days, a shower of meteors, 
of long duration, would have to be supposed. How he ever vis¬ 
ualized that unerring shower, striking one point over this earth’s 
surface, and nowhere else, day after day, if this earth be a rotating 
and revolving body, I can not see. If he should say that by coin¬ 
cidence this repetition could occur, then by what coincidence of 
coincidences could the same repetitions have occurred in this same 
local sky, centering around Reading, seven years before ? The in¬ 
dications are that this earth is stationary, no matter how unreason¬ 
able that may sound. 

In the Westminster Gazette, Dec. 9, W. F. Denning writes that 
without doubt the phenomena were “meteoric explosions.” But 
he alludes to the “airquake and strange noises” that were heard 
upon the 19th. He does not mention the detonations that were 
heard upon the following days. Not one of these writers mentions 
the sounds that were heard in Reading, in November, 1905. 

London Standard , Nov. 23, 1912—that, according to Lieut. 
Col. Trewman, of Reading, the sounds had been heard at Reading, 
at 9 a. M., upon the 19th; 1.45 p. m., the 20th; 3.30 p. m., the 
21st. 


CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE 


4 4 T TNKNOWN Aircraft Over Dover.” 

U According to the Dover correspondent to the London 
Times (Jan. 6, 1913) something had been seen, over Dover, head¬ 
ing from the sea. 

In the London Standard, Jan. 24, 1913, it is said that, 
upon the morning of Jan. 4, an unknown airship had been seen, 
over Dover, and that, about the same time, the lights of an air¬ 
ship had been seen over the Bristol Channel. These places are 
several hundred miles apart. 

London Times f Jan. 21—report by Capt. Lindsay, Chief Con¬ 
stable of Glamorganshire: that, about five o’clock, in the after¬ 
noon of Jan. 17, he saw an object in the sky of Cardiff, Wales. 
He says that he called the attention of a bystander, who agreed 
with him that it was a large object. “It was much larger than 
the Willows airship, and left in its trail a dense smoke. It dis¬ 
appeared quickly.” 

The next day, according to the Times, there were other reports: 
people in Cardiff saw something that was lighted or that car¬ 
ried lights, moving rapidly in the sky. In the Times, of the 
28th, it is said that an airship that carried a brilliant light had 
been seen in Liverpool. “It is stated at the Liverpool Aviation 
School that none of the airmen had been out on Saturday night.” 
Dispatches from town after town—a travelling thing in the sky, 
carrying a light, and also a searchlight that swept the ground. 
It is said that a vessel, of which the outlines had been clearly seen, 
had appeared in the sky of Cardiff, Newport, Neath, and other 
places in Wales. In the Standard, Jan. 31, is published a list 
of cities where the object had been seen. Here a writer tries to 
conclude that some foreign airship had made half a dozen visits to 
England and Wales, or had come once, remaining three weeks; 
but he gives up the attempt, thinking that nothing could have 

222 


NEW LANDS 


223 


reached England and have sailed away half a dozen times without 
being seen to cross the coast; thinking that the idea of anything 
having made one journey, and remaining three weeks in the air 
deserved no consideration. 

If the unknown object did carry something like a searchlight, 
an idea of its powers is given in an account in the Cardiff Eve¬ 
ning Express , Jan. 25, 1913—“Last evening brilliant lights were 
seen, sweeping skyward, and now, this evening, the lights grow 
bolder. Streets and houses in the locality of Totterdown were 
suddenly illuminated by a brilliant, piercing light, which, sweep¬ 
ing upward, gave many spectators a fine view of the hills beyond.” 
In the Express , Feb. 6, is a report upon this light like a search¬ 
light, and the object that flashed it, by the police of Dulais Val¬ 
ley. Also there is an account, by a police sergeant, of a lumi¬ 
nous thing that was for a while stationary in the sky, and then 
moved away. 

Still does the conventional explanation, or suggestion, survive. 
It is said that members of the staff of the Evening Express had 
gone to the roof of the newspaper building, but had seen only 
the planet Venus, which was brilliant at this time. 

Then writes a correspondent, to the Express , that the object 
could not have been Venus, because he had seen it travelling at 
a rate of 20 or 30 miles an hour, and had heard sounds from 
it. Someone else writes that not possibly could the thing be 
Venus: he had seen it as “a bright red light, going very fast.” 
Still someone else says that he had seen the seeming vessel upon 
the 5th of February, and that it had suddenly disappeared. 

There is a hiatus. Between the 5th and the 21st of February, 
nothing like an airship was seen in the sky of England and Wales. 
If we can find that somewhere else something similar was seen in 
the sky, in this period, one supposes that it was the same object, 
exploring or manoeuvring somewhere else. It seems however that 
there were several of these objects, because of simultaneous obser¬ 
vations at places far apart. If we can find that, during the ab¬ 
sence from England and Wales, similar objects were seen some¬ 
where else, a great deal of what we try to think upon the subject 
will depend upon how far from Great Britain they were seen. It 
seems incredible that the planet Venus should deceive thousands 


224 


NEW LANDS 


of Britons, up to the 5th of February, and stop her deceptions 
abruptly upon that date, and then abruptly resume deceptions 
upon the 21st, in places at a distance apart. These circumstances 
oppose the idea of collective hallucinations, by which some writers 
in the newspapers tried to explain. If they were hallucinations, 
the hallucinations renewed collectively, upon the 21st, in towns one 
hundred miles apart. One extraordinary association is that all 
appearances, except the first, were in the hours of visibility of 
Venus, then an “evening star.” 

Upon the night of the 21st, a luminous object was reported 
from towns in Yorkshire and from towns in Warwickshire, two 
regions about one hundred miles apart; about 10 P. M. All for¬ 
mer attempts to explain had been abandoned, and the general 
supposition was that German airships were manoeuvring over Eng¬ 
land. But not a thing had been seen to cross the coast of Eng¬ 
land, though guards were patrolling the coasts, especially com¬ 
missioned to watch for foreign airships. Sailors in the North 
Sea, and people in Holland and Belgium had seen nothing that 
could be thought a German airship sailing to or from England. 
A writer in Flight takes up as especially mysterious the appear¬ 
ance far inland, in Warwickshire. Then came reports from Ports¬ 
mouth, Ipswich, Hornsea, and Hull, but, one notes, no more, at 
this time, from Wales. Also in Ipswich, which is more than a 
hundred miles from the towns in Warwickshire, and more than 
a hundred miles from the Yorkshire towns, a luminous object was 
seen upon the night of the 21st. Ipswich Evening Star, Feb. 
25—something that carried a searchlight that had been seen upon 
the nights of the 21st and 24th, moving in various directions, and 
then “dashing off at lightning speed”—that, at Hunstanton, had 
been seen three bright lights travelling from the eastern sky, re¬ 
maining in sight 30 minutes, stationary, or hovering over the town, 
and then disappearing in the northwest. Portsmouth Evening 
News, Feb. 25—that soon after 8 p. m., evening of the 24th, had 
been seen a very bright light, appearing and disappearing, remain¬ 
ing over Portsmouth about one hour, and then moving away. 
Portsmouth and Ipswich are about 120 miles apart. In the Lon¬ 
don newspapers, it is said that, upon the evening of the 25th, 
crowds stood in the streets of Hull, watching something in the 


NEW LANDS 


225 


sky, “the lights of which were easily distinguishable.” Hull is 
about 190 miles northeast of Portsmouth. Hull Daily Mail, Feb. 
26—that a crowd had watched a light high in the air. It is said 
that the light had been stationary for almost half an hour and 
had then shot away northward. In the Times, Feb. 28, are pub¬ 
lished reports upon “the clear outlines of an airship, which was 
carrying a dazzling searchlight/’ from Portland, Burcleaves, St. 
Alban’s Head, Papplewich, and the Orkneys. The last account, 
after a long interval, that I know of, is another report from Capt. 
Lindsay: that, about 9 o’clock, evening of April 8th, he and many 
other persons had seen, over Cardiff, something that carried a bril¬ 
liant light and travelled at a rate of sixty or seventy miles an 
hour. 

Upon April 24, 1913, the planet Venus was at inferior con¬ 
junction. 

In the Times, Feb. 28, it is said that a fire-balloon had been 
found in Yorkshire, and it is suggested that someone had been 
sending up fire-balloons. 

In the Bull. Sac. Astro, de France, 1913-178, it is said that 
the people of England were as credulous as the people of Cher¬ 
bourg, and had permitted themselves to be deceived by the planet 
Venus. 

If German airships were manoeuvring over England, without 
being seen either approaching or departing, appearing sometimes 
far inland in England without being seen to cross the well-guarded 
coasts, it was secret manoeuvring, inasmuch as the accusation was 
denied in Germany (Times, Feb. 26 and 27). It was then one 
of the most brilliantly proclaimed of secrets, or it was conceal¬ 
ment under one of the most powerful searchlights ever seen. Pos¬ 
sibly an airship from Germany could appear over such a city as 
Hull, upon the east coast of England, without being seen to arrive 
or to depart, but so far from Germany is Portsmouth, for in¬ 
stance, that one does feel that something else will have to be 
thought of. The appearances over Liverpool and over towns in 
Wales might be attributed to German airships by someone who 
has not seen a map since he left school. There were more obser¬ 
vations upon sudden appearances and disappearances than I have 
recorded: stationariness often occurred. 


226 NEW LANDS 

The objects were absent from the sky of Great Britain, from 
Feb. 5 to Feb. 21. 

According to data published by Prof. Chant, in the Journal of 
the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 7-148, the most ex¬ 
traordinary procession in our records was seen, in the sky of 
Canada, upon the night of Feb. 9, 1913. Either groups of 
meteors, in one straight line, passed over the city of Toronto, or 
there was a procession of unknown objects, carrying lights. Ac¬ 
cording to Prof. Chant, the spectacle was seen from the Saskatche¬ 
wan to Bermuda, but if this long route was traversed, data do not 
so indicate. The supposed route was diagonally across New York 
State, from Buffalo, to a point near New York City, but from 
New York State are recorded no observations other than might 
have been upon ordinary meteors, this night. A succession of 
luminous objects passed over Toronto, night of Feb. 9, 1913, oc¬ 
cupying from three to five minutes in passing, according to dif¬ 
ferent estimates. If one will think that they were meteors, at 
least one will have to think that no such meteors had ever been 
seen before. In the Journal, 7-405, W. F. Denning writes that, 
though he had been watching the heavens since the year 1865, he 
had never seen anything like this. In most of the observations, 
the procession is described as a whole—“like an express train, 
lighted at night”—“the lights were at different points, one in front, 
and a rear light, then a succession of lights in the tail.” Almost 
all of the observations relate to the sky of Toronto and not far 
from Toronto. It is questionable that the same spectacle was 
seen in Bermuda, this night. The supposed long flight from the 
Saskatchewan to Bermuda might indicate something of a meteoric 
nature, but the meteor-explanation must take into consideration 
that these objects were so close to this earth that sounds from them 
were heard, and that, without succumbing to gravitation, they 
followed the curvature of this earth at a relatively low velocity 
that can not compare with the velocity of ordinary meteors. 

If now be accepted that again, the next day, objects were seen 
in the sky of Toronto, but objects unlighted, in the daytime—I 
suppose that to some minds will come the thought that this is 
extraordinary, and that almost immediately the whole subject will 
then be forgotten. Prof. Chant says that, according to the 


NEW LANDS 


227 


Toronto Daily Star, unknown objects, but dark objects this time, 
were seen at Toronto, in the afternoon of the next day—“not seen 
clearly enough to determine their nature, but they did not seem to 
be clouds or birds or smoke, and it was suggested that they were 
airships cruising over the city.” Toronto Daily Star, Feb. 10— 
“They passed from west to east, in three groups, and then returned 
west in more scattered formation, about seven or eight in all.” 


CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 


UGUST, 1914—this arena-like earth, with its horizon bank- 



ik ing high into a Coliseum, when seen from not too far above 
—faint, rattling sounds of the opening of boundaries—tawny 
formations slinking into the arena—their crouchings and seiz¬ 
ures and crunchings. Aug. 13, 1914—things that were gather¬ 
ing in the sky. They were seen by G. W. Atkins, of Elstree, 
Herts, and were seen again upon the 16th and the 17th ( Observa¬ 
tory, 37-358). Sept. 9, 1914—a host in the sky; watched sev¬ 
eral hours by W. H. Steavenson {Jour. B. A. A., 25-27). There 
were round appearances, but some of them were shaped like 
dumb bells. They were not seeds, snowflakes, insects, nor any¬ 
thing else that they “should” have been, according to Mr. Steaven¬ 
son. He says that they were large bodies. 

Oct. 10, 1914—a ship that was seen in the sky—or “an ab¬ 
solutely black, spindle-shaped object” crossing the sun. It was 
seen, at Manchester, by Albert Buss (Eng. Mec., 100-236). “Its 
extraordinarily clear-cut outline was surrounded by a kind of 
halo, giving the impression of a ship, plowing her way through 
the sea, throwing up white-foamed waves with her prow.” 

Mikkelsen (Lost in the Arctic , p. 345): 

“During the last few days (Oct., 1914) we have been much 
tumbled up and down in our minds, owing to a remarkable 
occurrence, somewhat in the nature of Robinson Crusoe’s en¬ 
counter with the footprints in the sand. Our advance load 
has been attacked—an empty petroleum cask is found, riddled with 
tiny holes, such as would be made by a charge of shot! Now 
a (iarge of shot is scarcely likely to materialize out of nowhere; 
one is accustomed to associate the phenomenon with the presence 
of human beings. It is none of our doing—then whose doing is 
it? We hit upon the wildest theories to account for it, as we 
sit in the tent, turning the mysterious object over and over. No 


228 


NEW LANDS 


229 


beast of our acquaintance could make all those little round 
holes: what animal could even open its jaws so wide? And 
why should anybody take the trouble to make a target of our 
gear? Are there Eskimos about—Eskimos with guns? There 
are no footprints to be seen: it could scarcely have been an ani¬ 
mal—the whole thing is highly mysterious.” 

Jan 31, 1915—a symbolic-looking formation upon the moon 
—six or seven white spots, in Littrow, arranged like the Greek 
letter Gamma {Eng. Mec., 101-47). 

Feb. 13, 1915—Steep Island, Chusan Archipelago—a light¬ 
house-keeper complained to Capt. W. F. Tyler, R. N., that a 
British warship had fired a projectile at the lighthouse. But no 
vessel had fired a shot, and it is said that the object must have 
been a meteor ( Nature , 97-17). 

In the middle of February, 1915, the planet Venus was about 
two months and a half past inferior conjunction. If objects like 
navigating constructions were seen in the sky, at this time, there 
may be an association, but I am turning against that association, 
feeling that it is harmful to our wider expression that extra- 
mundane vessels have been seen in the sky of this earth, and 
that they come from regions at present unknown. New York 
Tribune, Feb. 15, 1915—that, at 10 p. m., Feb. 14, three aero¬ 
planes had been seen to cross the St. Lawrence river, near Morris¬ 
town, N. Y., according to reports, but that, in the opinion of 
the Dominion police, nothing but fire-balloons had been seen. 
It is said that two “responsible residents” had seen two of the 
objects cross the river, between 8 and 8.30 p. m., and then re¬ 
turn five hours later. In the Canadian Parliament, Sir Wilfred 
Laurier had said that, at 9 p. m., he had been called up by 
the Mayor of Brockwell, telling him that three aeroplanes, with 
“powerful searchlights” had crossed the St. Lawrence. The story 
is told in the New York Herald. Here it is said that, according 
to the Chief of Police, of Ogdensburg, N. Y., a farmer, living 
five miles from Ogdensburg, had reported having seen an aero¬ 
plane, upon the 12th. Then it is said that the mystery had been 
solved: that, while celebrating the one hundredth anniversary 
of peace between the United States and Canada, some young 
men of Morristown had sent up paper balloons, which had ex- 


230 


NEW LANDS 


ploded in the sky, after 9 p. m., night of the 14th. New York 
Times —that the objects had been seen first at Guananoque, On¬ 
tario. Here it is said that the balloon-story is absurd. Accord¬ 
ing to the Dominion Observatory, the wind was, at the time, 
blowing from the east, and the objects had travelled toward the 
northeast. It is said that one of the objects had, for several 
minutes, turned a powerful searchlight upon the town of Brock- 
well. 

Upon Dec. 11, 1915, Bernard Thomas, of Glenorchy, Tas¬ 
mania, saw a “particularly bright spot upon the moon” {Eng. 
Mec. y 103-10). It was on the north shore of the Mare Crisium, 
and “looked almost like a star.” In Dr. Thomas’ opinion, it was 
sunlight reflected from the rim of a small crater. The crater 
Picard is near the north shore of the Mare Crisium, and most 
of the illuminations near Picard have occurred several months 
from an opposition of Mars. 

In December, 1915, another new formation upon the moon— 
reported from the Observatory of Paris—something like a black 
wall from the center to the ramparts of Aristillus {Bull. Soc. 
Astro, de France, 30-383). 

Jan 12, 1916—a shock in Cincinnati, Ohio. Buildings were 
shaken. The quake was from an explosion in the sky. Flashes 
were seen in the sky. (New York Herald, Jan. 13, 1916). 

Feb. 9, 1916—opposition of Mars. 

In the English Mechanic, 104-71, James Ferguson writes 
that someone had seen, at 11 o’clock, night of July 31, 1916, at 
Ballinasloe, Ireland, just such a moving thing, or just such a sail¬ 
ing, exploring thing as is now familiar in our records. For 
fifteen minutes it moved in a northwesterly direction. For three 
quarters of an hour it was stationary. Then it moved back to 
the point where first it had been seen, remaining visible until 
four o’clock in the morning. Whatever this object may have been, 
it left the sky at about the time that Venus appeared, as a “morn¬ 
ing star,” in the sky at Ballinasloe, and resembles the occur¬ 
rence of Sept 11, 1852, reported by Lord Wrottesley. Inferior 
conjunction of Venus was upon July 3, 1916. We have noticed 
that all occurrences that we somewhat reluctantly associate with 
nearness of Venus associate more with times of greatest bril- 


NEW LANDS 


231 


liance, five weeks before and after inferior conjunction, than with 
dates of conjunction. Somebody may demonstrate that at these 
times Venus comes closest to this earth. 

Oct. 10, 1916—a reddish shadow that spread over part of the 
lunar crater Plato; reported from the Observatory of Florence, 
Italy (Sci. Amer., 121-181). 

Nov. 25, 1916—about twenty-five bright flashes, in rapid suc¬ 
cession, in the sky of Cardiff, Wales, according to Arthur Mee 
(Eng. Mec.y 104-239). 

Col. Markwick writes, in the Jour. B. A. A., 27-188, that, at 
6.10 p. m., April 15, 1917, he had seen, upon the sun, a solitary 
spot, different from all sunspots that he had seen in an experience 
of forty-three years. Col. Markwick had written to Mr. Maunder, 
of the Greenwich Observatory, and had been told that, in photo¬ 
graphs taken of the sun upon this day, one at 11.17 and another 
at 11.20 o’clock, there was no sign of a sunspot. 

July 4, 1917—an eclipse of the sun, and an extraordinary lu¬ 
minous object said to have been a meteor, in France (Bull. Soc. 
Astro, de France , 31—299). About 6.20 p. m., this day, there 
was an explosion over the town of Colby, Wisconsin, and a 
stone fell from the sky ( Science , Sept. 14, 1917). 

Aug. 29, 1917—a luminous object that was seen moving upon 
the moon (Bull. Soc. Astro, de France , 31-439). 

Feb. 21, 1919—an intensely black line extending out from the 
lunar crater Lexall (Eng. Mec., 109-517). 

Upon May 19, 1919, while Harry Hawker was at sea, untrace- 
able messages, meaningless in the languages of this earth, were 
picked up by wireless, according to dispatches to the news¬ 
papers. They were interpreted as the letters K U J and V K A J. 

In October, 1913, occurred something that may not be so very 
mysterious because of nearness to the sea. One supposes that if 
extra-mundane vessels have sometimes come close to this earth, 
then sailing away, terrestrial aeronauts may have occasionally 
left this earth, or may have been seized and carried away from 
this earth. Upon the morning of Oct. 13, 1913, Albert Jewel 
started to fly in his aeroplane from Hempstead Plains, Long 
Island, to Staten Island. The route that he expected to take was 
over Jamaica Bay, Brooklyn, Coney Island, and the Narrows. 


232 


NEW LANDS 


New York Times , Oct. 14, 1913—“That was the last seen or 
heard of him ... he has been as completely lost as if he had 
evaporated into air.” But as to the disappearance of Capt. 
James there are circumstances that do call for especial attention. 
New York Times, June 2, 1919—that Capt. Mansell R. James 
was lost somewhere in the Berkshire Hills, upon his flight from 
Boston to Atlantic City, or, rather, upon the part of his route be¬ 
tween Lee, Mass., and Mitchel Field, Long Island. He had left 
Lee upon May 29th. Over the Berkshires, or in the Berkshires, 
he had disappeared. According to later dispatches, searching 
parties had “scoured” the Berkshires, without finding a trace of 
him. Upon June 4th, army planes arrived and searched sys¬ 
tematically. There was general excitement, in this mystery of 
Capt. James. Rewards were offered; all subscribers of the 
Southern New England Telephone Company were enlisted in a 
quest for news of any kind; boy scouts turned out. Up to this 
date of writing there has been nothing but a confusion of news¬ 
paper dispatches: that two children had seen a plane, about 
thirteen miles north of Long Island Sound; that two men had 
seen a plane fall into the Hudson River, near Poughkeepsie; 
that, in a gully of Mount Riga, near Millerstown, N. Y., had been 
found the remains of a plane; that part of a plane had been 
washed ashore from Long Island Sound, near Branford. The 
latest interest in the subject that I know of was in the summer 
of 1921. A heavy object was known to be at the bottom of the 
Hudson River, near Poughkeepsie, and was thought to be Capt. 
James* plane. It was dredged up and found to be a log. 

For an extraordinary story of windows, in Newark, N. J., 
that were perforated by unfindable bullets, see New York Eve¬ 
ning Telegram, Sept. 19, 1919, and the Newark Evening News. 
The occurrence is a counterpart of Mikkelsen’s experience. 

The detonations at Reading were heard seven years apart. 
Here it is not quite seven years later. London Times, Sept. 26, 
1919—that upon Sept. 25, a shock h^I been felt at Reading; that 
inquiries had led to information of no known explosion near 
Reading. In the Times, Oct. 14, Mr. H. L. Hawkins writes that 
the shock was “quite definitely an earthquake, but its origin was 
superficial” and that the shock “was transmitted through the 


NEW LANDS 


233 


earth more than through the air.” In the London Daily Chron¬ 
icle, Sept. 27, Mr. Hawkins, having considered all suggestions 
that the shock was a subterranean earthquake, had written: 
“However, as the whole thing terminated in a bump and a big 
bang, without subsequent shaking of the ground, it points more to 
an explosion of a natural type up in the air than to a real earth¬ 
quake.” And, in the London Daily Mail, Mr. Hawkins is quoted: 
that if the detontation were local, he would believe that it was an 
aerial explosion (“meteoric”); but, if it were widespread, it 
would be considered an earthquake. And in the whole series 
of the Reading phenomena, this violent detonation was most 
distinctly local to Reading. 

Reading Observer, Sept. *27, 1919—“The most probable explan¬ 
ation of the occurrence is that there was an explosion somewhere 
near enough to affect the town. . . . Officials at the Greenwich 
Observatory were unable to throw any light on the matter, 
and said that their instruments showed no signs of earth-distur¬ 
bance.” 

It is said that the sound and shock were violent, and that, 
in the residential parts of Reading, the streets were crowded 
with persons discussing the occurrence. 

There was a similar shock in Michigan, Nov. 27, 1919. In 
many cities, persons rushed from their homes, thinking that 
there had been an earthquake (New York Times, Nov. 28). 
But, in Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, a “blinding glare” was 
seen in the sky. Our acceptance is that this occurrence is, 
upon a small scale, of the type of many catastrophes in Italy 
and South America, for instance, when just such “blinding 
glares” have been seen in the sky, data of which have been sup¬ 
pressed by conventional scientists, or data of which have not 
impressed conventional scientists. 

English Mechanic, 110-257—J. W. Scholes, of Huddersfield, 
writes that, upon Dec. 19, 1919, he saw, near the lunar crater 
Littrow, “a very conspicuous black-ink mark.” Upon page 282, 
W. J. West, of Gosport, writes that he had seen the mark upon 
the 7th of December. 

March 22, 1920—a light in the sky of this earth, and an illu¬ 
mination upon the moon {Eng. Mec., 111-142). That so close 


234 


NEW LANDS 


to this earth is the moon that illuminations known as “auroral” 
often affect both this earth and the moon. 

July 20 and 21, and Sept. 13, 1920—dull rumbling sounds 
and quakes at Comrie, Perthshire (London Times, July 23 and 
Sept. 14, 1920). 

According to a dispatch to the Los Angeles Times —clipping 
sent to me by Mr. L. A. Hopkins, of Chicago—thunder and 
lightning and heavy rain, at Portland, Oregon, July 21, 1920: 
objects falling from the sky; glistening, white fragments that 
looked like “bits of polished china.” “The explanation of the 
local Weather Bureau is that they may have been picked up 
by a whirlwind and carried to the district where they were found.” 
The objection to this standardized explanation is the homoge¬ 
neousness of the falling objects. How can one conceive of winds 
raging over some region covered with the usual great diversity 
of loose objects and substances, having a liking for little white 
stones, sorting over maybe a million black ones, green ones, 
white ones, and red ones, to make the desired selection? One 
supposes that a storm brought to this earth fragments of a man¬ 
ufactured object, made of something like china, from some other 
world. 

In the Literary Digest, Sept. 2 1921, is published a letter 
from Carl G. Gowman, of Detroit, Michigan, upon the fall from 
the sky, in southwest China, Nov. 17 (1920?) of a substance 
that resembled blood. It fell upon three villages close together, 
and was said to have fallen somewhere else forty miles away. 
The quantity was great: in one of the villages, the substance 
“covered the ground completely.” Mr. Gowman accepts that this 
substance did fall from the sky, because it was found upon roofs 
as well as upon the ground. He rejects the conventional red- 
dust explanation, because the spots did not dissolve in several 
subsequent rains. He says that anything like pollen is out of 
the question, because at the time nothing was in bloom. 

Nov. 23, 1920—a correspondent writes, to the English Me¬ 
chanic, 112—214, that he saw a shaft of light projecting from 
the moon, or a spot so bright that it appeared to project, from 
the limb of the moon, in the region of Funerius. 

About Jan. 1, 1921—several irregular, black objects that crossed 


NEW LANDS 


235 


the sun. To the Rev. William Ellison {Eng. Mec., 112—276) 
they looked like pieces of burnt paper. 

July 25, 1921—a loud report, followed by a sharp tremor, 
and a rumbling sound, at Comrie (London Times, July 27, 
1921). 

July 31, 1921—a common indication of other lands from which 
come objects and substances to this earth—but our reluctance 
to bother with anything so ordinarily marvellous— 

Because we have conceived of intenser times and furies of 
differences of potential between this earth and other worlds: 
torrents of dinosaurs, in broad volumes that were streaked with 
lesser animals, pouring from the sky, with a foam of tusks and 
fangs, enveloped in a bloody vapor that was falsely dramatized 
by the sun, with rainbow-mockery. Or, in terms of planetary 
emotions, such an outpouring was the serenade of some other 
world to this earth. If poetry is imagery, and, if a flow of 
images be solid poetry, such a recitation was in three-dimensional 
hyperbole that was probably seen, or overheard, and criticized 
in Mars, and condemned for its extravagance in Jupiter. Some 
other world, meeting this earth, ransacking his solid imagination 
and uttering her living metaphors: singing a flood of mastodons, 
purring her butterflies, bellowing an ardor of buffaloes. Sail¬ 
ing away—sneaking up close to the planet Venus, murmering her 
antelopes, or arching his periphery and spitting horses at her— 
Poor, degenerate times—nowadays something comes close to 
this earth and lisps little commonplaces to her— 

July 31, 1921—a shower of little frogs that fell upon Anton 
Wagner’s farm, near Stirling, Conn. New York Evening World, 
Aug. 1, 1921). 

At sunset, Aug. 7, 1921, an unknown luminous object was seen, 
near the sun, at Mt. Hamilton, by an astronomer, Prof. Campbell, 
and by one of those who may some day go out and set foot 
upon regions that are supposed not to be: by an aviator, Capt. 
Rickenbacker. In the English Mechanic, 114-211, another char¬ 
acter in these fluttering vistas of the opening of the coming 
drama of Extra-geography, Col. Markwick, a conventional astron¬ 
omer and also a recorder of strange things, lists other observa¬ 
tions upon this object, the earliest upon the 6th, by Dr. Emmert, 


236 


NEW LANDS 


of Detroit. In the English Mechanic, 114-241, H. P. Hollis, 
once upon a time deliciously “exact” and positive, says some¬ 
thing, in commenting upon these observations, that looks like a 
little weakness in Exclusionism, because the old sureness is turn¬ 
ing slightly shaky—“that there are more wonderful things in 
the sky than we suspect, or that it is easy to be self-deceived.” 

It is funny to read of an “earthquake,” described in technical 
lingo, and to have a datum that indicates that it was no earth¬ 
quake at all, in the usual seismologic sense, but a concussion 
from an explosion in the sky. Aug. 7, 1921—a severe shock at 
New Canton, Virginia. See Bull. Seis. Sac. Amer., 11-197— 
Prof. Stephen Taber’s explanation that the shock had probably 
originated in the slate belt of Buckingham County, intensity 
about V on the R.-F. scale. But then it is said that, accord¬ 
ing to the “authorities” of the McCormick Observatory, the con¬ 
cussion was from an explosion in the sky. The time is com¬ 
ing when nothing funny will be seen in this subject, if some day 
be accepted at least parts of the masses of data that I am now 
holding back, until I can more fully develop them—that some 
of the greatest catastrophes that have devastated the face of 
this earth have been concussions from explosions in the sky, 
so repeating in a local sky weeks at a time, months sometimes, 
or intermittently for centuries, that fixed origins above the rav¬ 
aged areas are indicated. 

New York Tribune, Sept. 2, 1921: 

“J. C. H. Macbeth, London Manager of the Marconi Wire¬ 
less Telegraph Company, Ltd., told several hundred men, at a 
luncheon of the Rotary Club, of New York, yesterday, that 
Signor Marconi believed he had intercepted messages from Mars, 
during recent atmospheric experiments with wireless on board his 
yacht Electra, in the Mediterranean. Mr. Macbeth said that 
Signor Marconi had been unable to conceive of any other ex¬ 
planation of the fact that, during his experiments he had picked 
up magnetic wave-lengths of 150,000 metres, whereas the max¬ 
imum length of wave-production in the world today is 14,000 
metres. The regularity of the signals, Mr. Macbeth declared, dis¬ 
posed of any assumption that the waves might have been caused 
by electrical disturbance. The signals were unintelligible, con- 


NEW LANDS 


237 


sisting apparently of a code, the speaker said, and the only 
signal recognized was one resembling the letter V in the Marconi 
code.” See datum of May 19, 1919. 

But, in the summer of 1921, the planet Mars was far from 
opposition. The magnetic vibrations may have come from some 
other world. They may have had the origin of the sounds that 
have been heard at regular intervals— 

The San Salvadors of the sky— 

And we return to the principle that has been our re-enforce¬ 
ment throughout: that existence is infinite serialization, and 
that, except in particulars, it repeats— 

That the dot that spread upon the western horizon of Lisbon, 
March 4, 1493, can not be the only ship that comes back from 
the unknown, cargoed with news— 

And it may be Sept, this, nineteen hundred and twenty or 
thirty something, or Feb. that, nineteen hundred and twenty or 
thirty something else—and, later, see record of it in Eng. Mec., 
or Sci. Amer., vol. and p. something or another—a speck in the 
sky of this earth—the return of somebody from a San Salvador 
of the Sky and the denial by the heavens themselves, which 
may answer with explosions the vociferations below them, of 
false calculations upon their remotenesses. If the heavens do not 
participate with snow, the sky scrapers will precipitate tom 
up papers and shirts and skirts, too, when the papers give out. 

There will be a procession. Somebody will throw little black 
pebbles to the crowds. Over his procession will fly blue-fringed 
cupids. Later he will be insulted and abused and finally hounded 
to his death. But, in that procession, he will lead by the nose 
an outrageous thing that should not be: about ten feet long, 
short-winged, waddling on webbed feet. Insult and abuse and 
death he will snap his fingers under the nose of the outrageous 
thing. It will be worth a great deal to lead that by the nose 
and demonstrate that such things had been seen in the sky, though 
they had been supposed to be angels. It will be a great moment 
for somebody. He will come back to New York, and march up 
Broadway with his angel. 

Some now unheard-of De Soto, of this earth, will see for him¬ 
self the Father of Cloudbursts. 


238 


NEW LANDS 


A Balboa of greatness now known only to himself will stand 
on a ridge in the sky between two auroral seas. 

Fountains of Everlasting Challenge. 

Argosies in parallel lines and rabbles of individual adven¬ 
turers. Well enough may it be said that they are seeds in the 
sky. Of such are the germs of colonies. 


CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 


T HAT the Geo-system is an incubating organism, of which 
this earth is the nucleus—but an organism that is so strongly 
characterized by conditions and features of its own that likening 
it to any object internal to it is the interpreting of a thing in terms 
of a constituent—so that we think of an organism that is incom¬ 
pletely, or absurdly inadequately, expressible in terms of the egg¬ 
like and the larval and other forms of the immature—a geo- 
nucleated system that is dependent upon its externality as, in one 
way or another, is every similar, but lesser and included, thing— 
stimulated by flows of force that are now said to be meteoric, 
though many so-called “meteoric” streams seem more likely to be 
electric, that radiate from the umbilical channels of its constella¬ 
tions—vitalized by its sun, which is itself replenished by the 
comets, which, coming from external reservoirs of force, impart to 
the sun their freightages, and, unaffected by gravitation, return 
to an external existence, some of them even touching the sun, but 
showing no indication of supposed solar attraction. 

In a technical sense we give up the doctrine of Evolution. 
Ours is an expression upon Super-embryonic Development, in one 
enclosed system. Ours is an expression upon Design underlying 
and manifesting in all things within this one system, with a 
Final Designer left out, because we know of no designing force 
that is not itself the product of remoter design. In terms of our 
own experience we can not think of an ultimate designer, any 
more than we can think of ultimacy in any other respect. But 
we are discussing a system that, in our conception, is not a final 
entity; so then no metaphysical expression upon it is required. 

I point out that this expression of ours is not meant for aid 
and comfort to the reactionaries of the type of Col. W. J. Bryan, 
for instance: it is not altogether anti-Darwinian: the concept of 
Development replaces the concept of Evolution, but we accept 
the process of Selection, not to anything loosely known as Environ- 

239 


240 


NEW LANDS 


ment, but relatively to underlying Schedule and Design, predeter¬ 
mined and supervised, as it were, but by nothing that we conceive 
of in anthropomorphic terms. 

I define what I mean by dynamic design, in the development 
of any embryonic thing: a pre-determined, or not accidental, or 
not irresponsible, passage along a schedule of phases to a climax 
of unification of many parts. Some of the aspects of this process 
are the simultaneous varying of parts, with destiny, and not with 
independence, for their rule, or with future co-ordinations and 
functions for their goal; and their survival while still incipient, 
not because they are fittest relatively to contemporaneous environ¬ 
ment, so not because of usefulness or advantage in the present, 
inasmuch as at first they are not only functionless but also dis¬ 
cordant with established relations, but surviving because they are 
in harmony with the dynamic plan of a whole being: and the 
presence of forces of suppression, or repression, as well as forces of 
stimulation and protection, so that parts are held back, or are not 
permitted to develop before their time. 

If we accept that these circumstances of embryonic development 
are the circumstances of all wider development, within one en¬ 
closed system, the doctrine of Darwinian Evolution, as applied 
generally, will, in our minds, have to be replaced by an expression 
upon Super-embryonic Development, and Darwinism, unmodified, 
will become to us one more of the insufficiencies of the past. 
Darwinism concerns itself with the adaptations of the present, 
and does heed the part that the past has played, but, in Darwinism, 
there is no place for the influence of the future upon the present. 

Consider any part of an embryonic thing—the heart of an em¬ 
bryo—and at first it is only a loop. It will survive, and it will 
be nourished in its functionless incipiency; also it will not be per¬ 
mitted to become a fully developed heart before its scheduled 
time arrives; its circumstances are dominated by what it will be 
in the future. The eye of an embryo is a better instance. 

Consider anything of a sociologic nature that ever has grown: 
that there never has been an art, science, religion, invention that 
was not at first out of accord with established environment, 
visionary, preposterous in the light of later standards, useless in 
its incipiency, and resisted by established forces so that, seem- 


NEW LANDS 


241 


ingly animating it and protectively underlying it, there may have 
been something that in spite of its unfitness made it survive for 
future usefulness. Also there are data for the acceptance that all 
things, in wider being, are held back as well as protected and 
prepared for, and not permitted to develop before comes scheduled 
time. Langley’s flying machine makes me think of something of 
the kind—that this machine was premature; that it appeared a 
little before the era of aviation upon this earth, and that therefore 
Langley could not fly. But this machine was capable of flying, 
because, some years later, Curtis did fly in it. Then one thinks 
that the Wright Brothers were successful, because they did syn¬ 
chronize with a scheduled time. I have heard that it is ques¬ 
tionable that Curtis made no alterations in Langley’s machine. 
There is no lack of instances. One of the greatest of secrets that 
have eventually been found out was for ages blabbed by all the 
pots and kettles in the world—but that the secret of the steam 
engine could not, to the lowliest of intellects, or to supposititiously 
highest of intellects, more than adumbratorily reveal itself until 
came the time for its co-ordination with the other phenomena and 
the requirements of the Industrial Age. And coal that was stored 
in abundance near the surface of the ground—and the needs of 
dwellers over coal mines, veins of which were often exposed upon 
the surface of the ground, for fuel—but that this secret, too, ob¬ 
vious, too, could not be revealed until the coming of the Industrial 
Age. Then the building of factories, the inventing of machines, 
the digging of coal, and the use of steam, all appearing by simul¬ 
taneous variation, and co-ordinating. Shores of North America— 
nowadays, with less hero-worship than formerly, historians tell us 
that, to English and French fishermen, the coast of Newfoundland 
was well-known, long before the year 1492; nevertheless, to the 
world in general, it was not, or, according to our acceptances, could 
not be, known. About the year 1500, a Portuguese fleet was 
driven by storms to the coast of Brazil, and returned to Europe. 
Then one thinks that likely enough, before the year 1492, other 
vessels had been so swept to the coasts of the western hemisphere, 
and had returned—but that data of westward lands could not 
emerge from the suppressions of that era—but that the (feta did 
survive, or were preserved for future usefulness—that there are 


242 


NEW LANDS 


“Thou shalt nots” engraved upon something underlying all things, 
and then effacing, when phases pass away. 

We conceive now of all building—within one enclosed system— 
in terms of embryonic building, and of all histories as local as¬ 
pects of Super-embryonic Development. Cells of an embryo build 
falsely and futilely, in the sense that what they construct will be 
only temporary and will be out of adjustment later. If how- 
ever there are conditions by which successive stages must be trav¬ 
ersed before the arrival of maturity, ours is an expression upon 
the functioning of the false and the futile, in which case these 
terms, as derogations, should not be applied. We see that the 
cells that build have no basis of their own; that for their forma¬ 
tions there is nothing of reason and necessity of their own, be¬ 
cause they flourish in other formations quite as well. We see 
that they need nothing of basis, nor of guidance of their own, be¬ 
cause basis and guidance are of the essence of the whole. All 
are responses, or correlates, to a succession of commandments, as 
it were, or of dominant, directing, supervising spirits of different 
eras: that they take on appearances that are concordant with the 
general gastrula era, changing when comes the stimulus to agree 
with the reptilian era, and again responding harmoniously when 
comes the time of the mammalian era. It is in accordance with 
our experience that never has human mind, scientific, religious, 
philosophic, formulated one basic thought, one finally true law, 
principle, or major premise from which guidance could be deduced. 
If any thought were true and final it would include the deduced. 
We conceive that there has been guidance, just the same, if hu¬ 
man beings be conceived of as cellular units in one developing 
organism; and that human minds no more need foundations of 
their own than need the sub-embryonic cells that build so pre¬ 
posterously, according to standards of later growth, but build as 
they are guided to build. In this view, human reason is tropism, 
or response to stimuli, and reasoning is the trial-and-error process 
of the most primitive unicellular organisms, a susceptibility to 
underlying mandates, then a groping in perhaps all possible dis¬ 
tortions until adjustment with underlying requirements is reached. 
In this view, then, though there are, for instance, no atoms in 
the Daltonian sense, if in the service of a building science, the 


NEW LANDS 


243 


false doctrine of the atoms be needed, the mind that responds, 
perhaps not to stimulus, but to requirement, which seems to be a 
negative stimulus, and so conceives, is in adjustment and reaches 
the state known as success. I accept, myself, that there may be 
Final Truth, and that it may be attainable, but never in a service 
that is local or special in any one science or nation or world. 

It is our expression that temporary isolations characterize em¬ 
bryonic growth and super-embryonic growth quite as distinctly as 
do expansions and co-ordinations. Local centers of development 
in an egg—and they are isolated before they sketch out attempt¬ 
ing relations. Or in wider being—hemisphere isolated from 
hemisphere, and nation from nation—then the breaking down of 
barriers—the appearance of Japan out of obscurity—threads of a 
military plasm are cast across an ocean by the United States. 

Shafts of light that have pierced the obscurity surrounding 
planets—and something like a star shines in Aristarchus of the 
moon. Embryonic heavens that have dreamed—and that their 
mirages will be realized some day. Sounds and an interval; 
sounds and the same interval; sounds again—that there is one 
integrating organism and that we have heard its pulse. 


CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 


F EB. 7, 1922—an explosion “of startling intensity” in the sky 
of the northwestern point of the London Triangle ( Nature, 
Feb. 23, 1922). 

Repeating phenomena in a local sky—in VAstronomic, 36-201, 
it is said that, at Orsay (Seine-et-Oise) Feb. 15, 1922, a detona¬ 
tion was heard in the sky, and that 9 hours later a similar sound 
was heard, and that an illumination was seen in the sky. It is 
said that, 10 nights later, at Verneuil, in the adjoining province, 
Oise, a great, fiery mass was seen falling from the sky. 

March 12, 1922—rocks that had been falling “from the clouds,” 
for three weeks, at Chico, a town in an “earthquake region” in 
California (New York Times, March 12, 1922). Large, smooth 
rocks that “seemed to come straight from the clouds.” 

In the San Francisco Chronicle, in issues dating from the 12th 
to the 18th of March—clippings sent to me by Mr. Maynard 
Shipley, writer and lecturer upon scientific subjects, if there be 
such subjects—the accounts are of stones that, for four months, 
had been falling intermittently from the sky, almost always upon 
the roofs of two adjoining warehouses, in Chico, but, upon one 
occasion, falling three blocks away: “a downpour of oval-shaped 
stones”; “a heavy shower of warm rocks.” San Francisco Call, 
March 16—“warm rocks.” It is said that crowds gathered, and 
that upon the 17th of March a “deluge” of rocks fell upon a 
crowd, injuring one person. The police “combed” all surround¬ 
ings : the only explanation that they could think of was that some¬ 
body was firing stones from a catapult. One person was sus¬ 
pected by them, but, upon the 14th of March, a rock fell when he 
was known not to be in the neighborhood. 

The circumstances point to one origin of these stones, stationary 
in the sky, above the town of Chico. 

Upon the first of January, 1922, the attention of Marshal J. A. 

244 


NEW LANDS 


245 


Peck, of Chico, had been called to the phenomena. After in¬ 
vestigating more than two months, he said (San Francisco Ex¬ 
aminer, March 14) “I could find no one through my investiga¬ 
tions who could explain the matter. At various times I have 
heard and seen the stones. I think someone with a machine is 
to blame.” 

Prof. C. K. Studley, vice-president of the Teachers’ College, 
Chico, is quoted in the Examiner: 

“Some of the rocks are so large that they could not be thrown 
by any ordinary means. One of the rocks weighs 16 ounces. 
They are not of meteoric origin, as seems to have been hinted, 
because two of them show signs of cementation, either natural or 
artificial, and no meteoric factor was ever connected with a cement 
factory.” 

Once upon a time, dogmatists supposed, asserted, angrily de¬ 
clared sometimes, that all stones that fall from the sky must be 
of “true meteoric material.” That time is now of the past. See 
Nature, 105-759—a description of two dissimilar stones, cemented 
together, seen to fall from the sky, at Cumberland Falls, Ky., 
April 9, 1919. 

Miriam Allen de Ford (P. O. Box 573, San Francisco, Cal.— 
or see the Readers' Guide) has sent me an account of her own 
observations. About the middle of March, 1922, she was in Chico, 
and investigated. Went to the scene of the falling rocks; dis¬ 
cussed the subject with persons in the crowd. “While I was dis¬ 
cussing it with some bystanders, I looked up at the cloudless sky, 
and suddenly saw a rock falling straight down, as if becoming 
visible when it came near enough. This rock struck the roof with 
a thud, and bounced off on the track beside the warehouse, and 
I could not find it.” “I learned that the rocks had been falling 
since July, 1921, though no publicity arose until November.” 

There have been other phenomena at Chico. In the New York 
Times, Sept. 2, 1878, it is said that, upon the 20th of August, 
1878, according to the Chico Record, a great number of small 
fishes fell from the sky, at Chico, covering the roof of a store, and 
falling in the streets, upon an area of several acres. Perhaps the 
most important observation is that they fell from a cloudless sky. 
Several occurrences are listed as 'earthquakes, by Dr. Holden, in 


246 


NEW LANDS 


his Catalog; but the detonations that were heard at Oroville, a 
town near Chico, Jan. 2, 1887, are said, in the Monthly Weather 
Review, 1887-24, to have been in the sky. Upon the night of 
March 5-6, 1885, according to the Chico Chronicle, a large ob¬ 
ject, of very hard material, weighing several tons, fell from the 
sky, near Chico ( Monthly Weather Review, March, 1885). In 
the year 1893, an iron object, said to be meteoritic, was found at 
Oroville (Mems. Nat. Acad. Sci., 13-345). 

My own idea is either that there is land over the town of Chico, 
and not far away, inasmuch as objects from it fall with a very 
narrow distribution, or that far away, and therefore invisible, 
there may be land from which objects have been carried in a 
special current to one very small part of this earth’s surface. If 
anyone would like to read an account of stones that fell intermit¬ 
tently for several days, clearly enough as if in a current, or in a 
field of special force, of some kind, at Livet, near Clavaux, 
France, December, 1842, see the London Times, Jan. 13, 1843. 
There have been other such occurrences. Absurdly, when they 
were noticed at all, they were supposed to be psychic phenomena. 
I conceive that there is no more of the psychic to these occurrences 
than there is to the arrival of seeds from the West Indies upon 
the coast of England. Stones that fell upon a house, near the 
Pantheon, Paris, for three weeks, January, 1849—see Dr. Wal¬ 
lace’s Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, p. 284. Several times, 
in the course of this book, I have tried to be reasonable. I have 
asked what such repeating phenomena in one locaj^sky do in¬ 
dicate, if they do not indicate fixed origins in the sky. And if 
such occurrences, supported by many data in other fields, do not 
indicate the stationariness of this earth, with new lands not far 
away—tell me what it is all about. The falling stones of Chico— 
new lands in the sky—or what? 

Boston Transcript, March 21, 1922—clipping sent to me by 
Mr. J. David Stem, Editor and Publisher of the Camden (N. J.) 
Daily Courier — 

“Geneva, March 21—During a heavy snow storm in the Alps 
recently thousands of exotic insects resembling spiders, caterpillars, 
and huge ants fell on the slopes and quickly died. Local nat¬ 
uralists are unable to explain the phenomenon, but one theory is 


NEW LANDS 


247 


that the insects were blown in on the wind from a warmer cli¬ 
mate.’ J 

The fall of unknown insects in a snow storm is not the circum¬ 
stance that I call most attention to. It is worth noting that I have 
records of half a dozen similar occurrences in the Alps, usually 
about the last of January, but the striking circumstance is that 
insects of different species and of different specific gravities fell 
together. The conventional explanation is that a wind, far away, 
raised a great variety of small objects, and segregated them accord¬ 
ing to specific gravity, so that twigs and grasses fell in one place, 
dust some other place, pebbles somewhere else, and insects farther 
along somewhere. This would be very fine segregation. There 
was no very fine segregation in this occurrence. Something of a. 
seasonal, or migratory, nature, from some other world, localized in 
the sky, relatively to the Alps, is suggested. 

May 4, 1922—discovery, by F. Burnerd, of three long mounds 
in the lunar crater Archimedes. See the English Mechanic , 
115-194, 218, 268, 278. It seems likely that these constructions 
had been recently built. 

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, May 18, 1922 (Associated Press )— 
particles of matter falling continuously for several days. “The 
phenomenon is supposed here to be of volcanic origin, but all the 
volcanoes of the West Indies are reported as quiet.” 

New York Tribune > July 3, 1922—that, for the fourth time in 
one month, a great volume of water, or a “cloudburst,” had poured 
from one local sky, near Carbondale, Pa. 

Oct. 15, 1922—a large quantity of white substance that fell 
upon the shores of Lake Michigan, near Chicago. It fell upon 
the clothes of hundreds of persons, fell upon the campus of North¬ 
western University, likely enough fell upon the astronomical ob¬ 
servatory of the University. It occurred to one of these hundreds, 
or thousands, of persons to collect some of this substance. He is 
Mr. L. A. Hopkins, 111 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago. He sent 
me a sample. I think that it is spider web, because it is viscous: 
when burned it chars with the crinkled effect of burned hair and 
feathers, and the odor is similar. But it is strong, tough sub¬ 
stance, of a cottony texture, when rolled up. The interesting cir¬ 
cumstance to me is that similar substance has fallen frequently 


248 


NEW LANDS 


upon this earth, in October, but that, in terrestrial terms, seasonal 
migrations of aeronautical spiders can not be thought of, be¬ 
cause in the tropics and in Australia, as well as in the United 
States and in England, such showers have occurred in October. 
Then something seasonal, but seasonal in an extra-mundane sense, 
is suggested. See the Scientific Australian, Sept., 1916—that, 
from October 5 to 29, 1915, an enormous fall of similar substance 
occurred upon a region of thousands of square miles, in Australia. 

Time after time, in data that I have only partly investigated, 
occur declarations that, during devastations commonly known as 
“earthquakes,” in Chile, the sky has flamed, or that “strange il¬ 
luminations” in the sky have been seen. In the Bui . Seis. Soc. 
Amer., for instance, some of these descriptions have been noted, 
and have been hushed up with the explanation that they were the 
reports of unscientific persons. 

Latest of the great quakes in Chile—1,500 dead “recovered” 
in one of the cities of the Province of Atacama. New York Tri¬ 
bune, Nov. 15, 1922—“Again, today, severe earthquakes shook the 
Province of Coquimbo and other places, and strange illuminations 
were observed over the sea, off La Serena and Copiapo.” 

Back to Crater Mountain, Arizona, for an impression—but far 
more impressive are similar data as to these places of Atacama 
and Copiapo, in Chile. In the year 1845, M. Darlu, of Val¬ 
paraiso, read, before the French Academy, a paper, in which he 
asserted that, in the desert of Atacama, which begins at Copiapo, 
meteorites are strewn upon the ground in such numbers that they 
are met at every step. If these objects fell all at one time in this 
earthquake region, we have another instance conceivably of mere 
coincidence between the aerial and the seismic. If they fell at dif¬ 
ferent times, the indications are of a fixed relationship between 
this part of Chile and a center somewhere in the sky of falling 
objects commonly called “meteorites” and of cataclysms that dev¬ 
astate this part of Chile with concussions commonly called “earth¬ 
quakes.” There is a paper upon this subject in Science, 14-434. 
Here the extreme abundance asserted by M. Darlu is questioned: 
it is said that only thirteen of these objects were known to science. 
But, according to descriptions, four of them are stones, or stone- 
irons, differing so that, in the opinion of the writer, and not 


NEW LANDS 


249 


merely so interpreted by me, these four objects fell at different 
times. Then the nine others are considered. They are nickel- 
irons. They, too, are different, one from another. So then it is 
said that these thirteen objects, all from one place, were, with 
reasonable certainty, the products of different falls. 

Behind concepts that sometimes seem delirious, I offer—a rea¬ 
sonable certainty— 

That, existing somewhere beyond this earth, perhaps beyond 
a revolving shell in which the nearby stars are openings, there 
are stationary regions, from which, upon many occasions, have 
emanated “meteors,” sometimes exploding catastrophically over 
Atacama, Chile, for instance. Coasts of South America have 
reeled, and the heavens have been afire. Reverberations in the 
sky—the ocean has responded with islands. Between sky and 
earth of Chile there have been flaming intimacies of destruction 
and slaughter and woe— 

Silence that is conspiracy to hide past ignorance; that is im¬ 
becility, or that is the unawareness of profoundest hypnosis. 

Hypnosis— 

That the seismologists, too, have functioned in preserving the 
illusion of this earth’s isolation, and by super-embryonic processes 
have been hypnotized into oblivion of a secret that has been pro¬ 
claimed with avalanches of fire from the heavens, and that has 
babbled from brooks of the blood of crushed populations, and that 
is monumentalized in ruins. 


THE END 






• 
















v 

, 







. 




- 












* . 

. 

' ! 







' 














$ a 






































* 
























































































. 









































- 































































































. 



























t 








4 * 
















4 


































\ 



















































% 



































































































































• 











































/ 













♦ 















































































































f 


■ 














M *• i 





\ 











































































' 









- 









/ 







otc 1 




















































